Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00030/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00030-3/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

VERNON MCNEAL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

D. GONZALEZ,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-00030-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER 

SECTION 1983

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Vernon McNeal (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 8, 2015, the Court 

dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint, filed on February 23, 2015, is currently before the Court for screening. 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

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 

Case 1:14-cv-00030-BAM Document 20 Filed 03/18/15 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

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

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

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949

(quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 

2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere 

consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at Calipatria State Prison. The events alleged in the 

complaint occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Corcoran State Prison CSATF. Plaintiff names 

Correctional Officer D. Gonzalez as the sole defendant in his official and individual capacity. 

As with his original and amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on June 26, 2012, a 

fight broke out between two inmates on C yard between 2 and 3 building. Plaintiff was at the 

corner of 4 building. Videotape evidence shows Plaintiff’s distance was not a threat, but 

Building 4 Tower Officer Gonzalez shot Plaintiff in the right leg with a 40 mm launcher. Officer 

Gonzalez stated on his incident report that Plaintiff advanced two steps toward the altercation. 

Plaintiff claims that the videotape evidence contradicts this statement. Plaintiff believes that 

Officer Gonzalez invented the two steps so that he could use Plaintiff for target practice. 

Plaintiff contends that he sustained a permanent injury to his right leg. 

Case 1:14-cv-00030-BAM Document 20 Filed 03/18/15 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

Plaintiff additionally alleges that he had to file multiple 602s about getting shot by 

Officer Gonzalez. Plaintiff claims that Appeals Coordinators kept rejecting and cancelling 

Plaintiff’s 602s. 

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. 

III. Discussion

The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force against Defendant 

Gonzalez because success in this action would necessarily invalidate the result of a disciplinary 

conviction and loss of credits. According to papers attached to Plaintiff’s original complaint, the 

disciplinary conviction was based on finding that Plaintiff failed to comply with orders and 

caused Defendant Gonzalez to use his 40mm launcher. The Court instructed Plaintiff that he 

could not pursue his excessive force claim in this action unless he could demonstrate that his 

disciplinary conviction had been invalidated. The Court then granted Plaintiff an opportunity to 

cure the identified deficiencies to the extent he was able to do so in good faith.

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff omitted any reference to the disciplinary conviction 

and resulting loss of credits. Plaintiff was given a final opportunity to cure the deficiencies in his 

complaint, but was cautioned that he could not merely omit information in order to state a 

cognizable claim. 

Heck Bar

As a general matter, state prisoners may not challenge the fact or duration of their 

confinement in a section 1983 action and their sole remedy lies in habeas corpus relief. 

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005). Often referred to 

as the favorable termination rule or the Heck bar, this exception to section 1983’s otherwise 

broad scope applies whenever state prisoners “seek to invalidate the duration of their 

confinement-either directly through an injunction compelling speedier release or indirectly 

through a judicial determination that necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the State's custody.” 

Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81 (emphasis in original). Accordingly, “a state prisoner's [section] 1983 

action is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable 

relief), no matter the target of the prisoner's suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal 

Case 1:14-cv-00030-BAM Document 20 Filed 03/18/15 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

prison proceedings)—if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of 

confinement or its duration.” Id. at 81–2. The favorable termination rule applies to prison 

disciplinary proceedings if those proceedings resulted in the loss of good-time or behavior 

credits. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646–48, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997).

To the extent Plaintiff’s success in this action would necessarily invalidate the result of 

the disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff may not pursue his excessive force claim in this action unless 

he can demonstrate that his disciplinary conviction has been invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477, 489, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2373 (1994) (“Even a prisoner who has fully exhausted 

available state remedies has no cause of action under § 1983 unless and until the conviction or 

sentence is reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ of habeas 

corpus.”).

In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff again omits any reference to the disciplinary 

proceedings. He has not demonstrated that his disciplinary conviction has been invalidated. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. Plaintiff has been unable to cure the identified deficiencies and further leave to amend is 

not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, this action is 

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00030-BAM Document 20 Filed 03/18/15 Page 4 of 4