Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02118/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02118-1/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

Plaintiff does not specify what type of injunctive relief he is requesting; a 1

preliminary or a permanent injunction. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY STEVEN BOWMAN, No. CIV S07-2118-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint requests injunctive relief from the imposition of the

residency restrictions of California Penal Code § 3003.5, also known as “Jessica’s Law.”1

Plaintiff indicates that he was convicted in 1987 pursuant to California Penal Code § 314.1. His

sentence included a term of probation which terminated in 1989. Then in 2003, plaintiff was

convicted of possession of controlled substance, in violation of California Health and Safety

Code § 11377(a), for which he received a two year prison term. He was paroled from this

violation on March 16, 2006. He then claims that on October 4, 2007, he was forced to sign a

Case 2:07-cv-02118-FCD-CMK Document 8 Filed 03/27/08 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

special condition of parole addendum stating that California Penal Code § 3003.5(b) applies to

him. 

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in state prison, and is being housed at Deuel

Vocational Institution in Tracy, California. However, plaintiff does not explain why he is

currently incarcerated or what effect his request for injunctive relief has on his incarceration. 

Specifically, plaintiff does not explain whether his request for injunctive relief is prospective

only or whether he seeks immediate or earlier release. If the latter, his claim would sound in

habeas relief. If plaintiff is currently in prison on a parole violation for his failure to register

pursuant to § 3003.5, then a finding that § 3003.5 registration requirements do not apply to

plaintiff would necessarily effect his state of confinement, and his only remedy would be a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. That is unless he is seeking prospective injunctive relief

only. When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks is a

determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is not

cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the prisoner’s sole federal remedy is a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda,

131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir.

1995) (per curiam). 

If a § 1983 complaint states claims which sound in habeas, the court should not

convert the complaint into a habeas petition. See Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir.

1997); Trimble, 49 F.3d at 586. Rather, such claims must be dismissed without prejudice and the

complaint should proceed on any remaining cognizable § 1983 claims. See Edwards v. Balisok,

520 U.S. 641, 649 (1987); Trimble, 49 F.3d at 585. Therefore, plaintiff will be required to show

cause, in writing, within 30 days why his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should not be

dismissed. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the

entire action. See Local Rule 11-110. 

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-02118-FCD-CMK Document 8 Filed 03/27/08 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, within 30 days of the date of service

of this order, why his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should not be dismissed;

2. Specifically, plaintiff shall inform the court why he is currently

incarcerated with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, whether on a

parole violation or a separate unrelated charge;

3. If plaintiff is currently incarcerated on a parole violation, plaintiff shall

specify for what conviction the parole relates, the term of parole he has violated, when this

violation occurred, and the length of his current sentence; and

4. Plaintiff shall explain to the court what effect a grant of his request for

injunctive relief would have, if any, on his current incarceration.

DATED: March 26, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-02118-FCD-CMK Document 8 Filed 03/27/08 Page 3 of 3