Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00650/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00650-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARVESTER J. JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE 

FACILITY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0650 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. He has consented to have all matters in this action before a United States Magistrate Judge. 

See 28 U.S.C. 636(c). On March 27, 2015, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to file 

an amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

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).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Case 2:15-cv-00650-CKD Document 12 Filed 08/20/15 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

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 

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

In his amended complaint, plaintiff asserts that officials at the California Health Care 

Facility “have punished [plaintiff] for the same crime twice.” Plaintiff fails to elaborate except 

that he suggests defendants’ actions have prolonged his stay in prison. In any case, plaintiff fails 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and, as plaintiff was informed in the order 

dismissing his original complaint (ECF No. 4), to the extent he seeks an earlier release date, his 

sole federal remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 

475, 500 (1973). For these reasons, the court will dismiss this action. Considering plaintiff has 

already been granted leave to amend to cure the deficiencies in his pleadings, granting leave to 

amend again would be futile. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:15-cv-00650-CKD Document 12 Filed 08/20/15 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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. This case is closed. 

Dated: August 20, 2015

1

john0659.dis

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00650-CKD Document 12 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 3