Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-04697/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-04697-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

EUGENE LAMAR HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

T. RODRIGUEZ, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 12-4697 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

Case 4:12-cv-04697-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

1937, 1950 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff has filed three complaints in this action, and the court has screened the

most recent complaint. Docket No. 4. Plaintiff names approximately twenty defendants

and states that they planted inmate manufactured weapons in plaintiff’s wheelchair and

then conspired to have plaintiff found guilty at a disciplinary hearing. As a result of the

guilty finding, plaintiff states he was assessed a twelve month loss of time credits. Petition

at 14, 36, 40. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and expungement of the disciplinary

finding from his record.

This claim appears to be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In

Heck the United States Supreme Court held that in order to recover damages for an

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff must prove

that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive

Case 4:12-cv-04697-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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. Id. at 486-487. A

claim for damages arising from a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is

not cognizable under section 1983. Id. Heck has been extended to prison disciplinary

hearings where time credits were affected. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) 

When a state prisoner seeks damages in a section 1983 suit, the district court must

consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of

his continued confinement; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff

can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. at 487. 

It does not appear this disciplinary finding has been invalidated, so this claim must

be dismissed, though plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to demonstrate the reversal of

the finding. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (claims

barred by Heck may be dismissed sua sponte without prejudice).

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than February 7,

2013, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely

replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to

present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not

incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the

designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

///

Case 4:12-cv-04697-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2013. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.12\Hamilton4697.dwlta.wpd

Case 4:12-cv-04697-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/07/13 Page 4 of 4