Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01417/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01417-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rene Camacho, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1417-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

On July 31, 2008, Plaintiff Rene Camacho, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. #1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an

August 7, 2008 Order, the Court denied the Application to Proceed because it was filed on

an outdated form and gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a new Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis or pay the $350.00 filing fee.

On August 20, 2008, Plaintiff filed his second Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. #5). The Court will grant the second Application to Proceed and will dismiss

the action.

I. Second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

The statutory fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s

income each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The

Case 2:08-cv-01417-MHM--ECV Document 6 Filed 09/16/08 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

27

28

- 2 -

Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and

forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

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

a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the

allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint

before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000)

(en banc). Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend because the

defects cannot be corrected.

III. Complaint

In his one-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendants Arizona Department of

Corrections Director Dora Schriro, Discipline Coordinator Sergeant Qualls, and Warden Ivan

Bartos. Plaintiff contends that he was denied his right to due process in a disciplinary

proceeded that resulted in his loss of good-time credits and his placement on Parole Class III

status. In his Request for Relief, he seeks monetary damages, the expungement of the

disciplinary case from his prison record, and a parole hearing without the disciplinary case

on his record.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

 “[A] state prisoner seeking injunctive relief against the denial or revocation of goodtime credits must proceed in habeas corpus, and not under § 1983.” Nonnette v. Small, 316

F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2002). In addition, if a judgment for Plaintiff regarding the denial

of due process in a prison disciplinary proceeding would invalidate or imply the invalidity

of the deprivation of good-time credits, the claim is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477 (1994), unless Plaintiff can show that the disciplinary conviction has been

Case 2:08-cv-01417-MHM--ECV Document 6 Filed 09/16/08 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

27

28

- 3 -

previously invalidated. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48 (1997); Heck, 512

U.S. at 486-87; Nonnette, 316 F.3d at 875. See also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-

82 (2005) (“[A] state prisoner’s § 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 prison proceedings)–if success in that action would

necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”).

Here, Plaintiff’s claim, if decided in his favor, would either invalidate or imply the

invalidity of the deprivation of his good-time credits and his parole class placement. Because

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his prison disciplinary proceeding has been reversed,

expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of

habeas corpus, his claim is barred by Heck. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Count One and

the Complaint.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #5) is

granted.

(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is not assessed an initial partial filing fee.

(3) The Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(4) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal

for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 12th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01417-MHM--ECV Document 6 Filed 09/16/08 Page 3 of 3