Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00142/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00142-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMOND MIMMS,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 0142 REC SMSWMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

GEORGE GALAZA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the original complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody

of the California Department of Corrections at CSP Corcoran, brings this civil rights action 

against defendant Warden George Galaza, as well as various individuals connected with

plaintiff’s underlying criminal conviction. Plaintiff names as defendants a Superior Court judge

as well as prosecutors and others involved in his criminal process. 

Plaintiff’s claim in this complaint is that he is being illegally confined. He alleges

that he has been denied parole, and that his conviction was obtained fraudulently. in Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner’s claim for

damages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. §

Case 1:05-cv-00142-REC-WMW Document 7 Filed 05/02/05 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

2

1983 if a judgment in favor of plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction

or sentence, unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously

been invalidated. 512 U.S. at 487. Here, plaintiff allegations, if true, imply that his conviction,

or continued incarceration, is invalid. There are no allegations that plaintiff’s conviction has

been reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. Plaintiff’s claims under section 1983 are

therefore not cognizable. 

Further, 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), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991).

Because plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief, the

complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file an amended

complaint. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

Case 1:05-cv-00142-REC-WMW Document 7 Filed 05/02/05 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

3

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. 

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

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

first amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "First Amended Complaint"; plaintiff

must file an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended

complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00142-REC-WMW Document 7 Filed 05/02/05 Page 3 of 3