Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02989/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02989-1/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

27

28

Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Fernandes2989_dismissal.remedy.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND FERNANDES,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

FREEMAN, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-2989 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, an inmate at Napa State Hospital proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims that he is being wrongly detained

pursuant to false arrest, and he seeks to be freed “from false detainment as soon as

possible.” The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify

any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

Case 5:08-cv-02989-JF Document 7 Filed 08/22/08 Page 1 of 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

Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Fernandes2989_dismissal.remedy.wpd 2

immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be

liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988). 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 violation was committed by a person acting under the

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

Plaintiff alleges that he was falsely arrested, and that the arrest led to his present

incarceration. He sues the arresting officer, a prosecutor, jail officials, and a state court

judge. He seeks to be released from custody as soon as possible. The Supreme Court has

consistently held that any claim by a prisoner attacking the fact or duration of his

confinement must be brought by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See

Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648

(1997). In particular, a prisoner must file a habeas petition if the nature of his claim is

such that it may result in his entitlement to immediate or earlier release. See Butterfield

v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874,

876-78 (9th Cir. 1990); Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989). A civil

rights complaint seeking habeas relief is subject to dismissal without prejudice to the

prisoner’s bringing his claim in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Trimble v.

City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). 

CONCLUSION

As the present civil rights complaint seeks release from custody, relief that is only

available from this court via a habeas petition, the complaint is DISMISSED without

prejudice to plaintiff’s refiling his claims in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus after he

has exhausted his claims in the state courts. 

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

8/21/08

Case 5:08-cv-02989-JF Document 7 Filed 08/22/08 Page 2 of 2