Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00004/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00004-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY L. SHIVERS, III, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY )

MICHELLE LEVINE, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:07cv0004 OWW SMS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff ROY L. SHIVERS, III, (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis, filed the instant action on January 3, 2007. He names Deputy District Attorney

Michelle Levine and Detectives Mark Shumway and Gary DeVinna as Defendants. Plaintiff

alleges violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

DISCUSSION

A. Screening Standard

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915A(b)(1)-(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to

Case 1:07-cv-00004-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 05/07/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint

can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000).

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Analysis

Although portions of Plaintiff’s complaint are very difficult to decipher, it appears that he

alleges violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights stemming from an August

1995, arrest. He contends, without much factual explanation, that the arresting officers and

District Attorney acted in bad faith because they knew, or should have known, that the charges

were false. He further alleges that the arresting officer conducted a search and seizure without

probable cause. For relief, Plaintiff requests a press release and media attention, injunctive relief

and punitive damages. 

There are numerous deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint. However, the Court will not

discuss each issue because, as a threshold matter, his complaint is not cognizable as an action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody,

or raises a constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal

remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny,

907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990). Moreover, when seeking damages for an allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction

or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by

a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal

court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence

that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488. 

Case 1:07-cv-00004-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 05/07/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations are directly related to the legality of his custody and therefore

must be brought in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. As Plaintiff cannot remedy this

deficiency, the Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court recommends that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Oliver W.

Wanger, United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District

Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any

party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if

served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00004-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 05/07/07 Page 3 of 3