Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00305/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00305-0/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Rene Courts is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint, filed March 3, 2017. 

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

RENE COURTS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00305-DAD-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 1]

Case 1:17-cv-00305-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 03/09/17 Page 1 of 4
2

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

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now 

higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive 

screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow 

the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer 

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely 

consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, as the 

sole Defendant.

In his first claim, Plaintiff states “found watches on the ground not me on video[,]” and 

references absconding and probation/parole. In the second claim, Plaintiff states “[F]ifth Amendment 

my right is not to say anything because might be incriminated[,]” and references the claim as criminal. 

In the third claim, Plaintiff references absconding and a parole warrant hold. 

As relief, Plaintiff requests modification of disposition. 

///

///

///

Case 1:17-cv-00305-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 03/09/17 Page 2 of 4
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

III.

DISCUSSION

A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or 

duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper 

method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 

U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes 

to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. “[R]elief is available to a prisoner under the 

federal habeas statute ... if success on the claim would ‘necessarily spell speedier release’ from 

custody, which . . . include termination of custody, acceleration of the future date of release from 

custody, or reduction of the level of custody.” Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d 992, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015) 

(quoting Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 534 (2011)).

Plaintiff is seeking to challenge the constitutionality of his conviction and/or his custody rather 

than the conditions of his confinement. In order for a modification of the disposition, it would have to 

be determined Plaintiff’s present conviction is invalid. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims effectively challenge

his current custody and release therefrom which cannot be raised by way of a section 1983 complaint. 

Plaintiff must file a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

complaint must be dismissed, without prejudice. Although the Court would generally grant Plaintiff 

leave to amend in light of his pro se status, amendment is futile in this instance because the 

deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 

2000); Schmier v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(recognizing “[f]utility of amendment” as a proper basis for dismissal without leave to amend); see 

also Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (a civil rights complaint seeking 

habeas relief should be dismissed without prejudice to filing as a petition for writ of habeas corpus). 

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), venue for a habeas action challenging the validity of the conviction and/or sentence is 

proper in the district of conviction. 

Case 1:17-cv-00305-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 03/09/17 Page 3 of 4
4

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

IV.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDING that:

1. The complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00305-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 03/09/17 Page 4 of 4