Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00046/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00046-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRRALL F. CANNON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0046 MCE DAD P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner confined in Ironwood State Prison, commenced this

action by filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application was presented on a

form intended for use in a civil rights action and identifies defendants as “California Department

of Correction et al.” In the interests of justice, the Clerk of the Court opened a civil rights action

for plaintiff, and the undersigned directed the Clerk to provide plaintiff with a civil rights

complaint form. Plaintiff’s initial pleading is now before the court.

The court is required to screen any complaint brought by a prisoner seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of such an entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The court must dismiss 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).

Case 2:05-cv-00046-MCE -DAD Document 14 Filed 08/29/05 Page 1 of 6
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

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted only if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support

of the claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73

(1984); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). For

purposes of reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the allegations of

the complaint. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The court

also construes the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolves all doubts in

the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976).

“A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which

Case 2:05-cv-00046-MCE -DAD Document 14 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 6
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

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Supervisory

personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory

of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the

causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. 

See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441

(9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official

personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In the civil rights complaint filed in this action on February 22, 2005, plaintiff

appears to identify as defendants (1) Jeanne Woodford, Director of the California Department of

Corrections; (2) Michael Ramos, District Attorney for the County of San Bernardino; (3) M.

Daly, Deputy District Attorney for the County of San Bernardino; and (4) M. Mandabach, Judge

of the San Bernardino County Superior Court. On a separate page captioned for filing in the

Fresno Division of this court, plaintiff lists additional defendants. The court is unable to

determine whether the numerous individuals and entities listed on the separate page are

defendants in this case or defendants in another action. Plaintiff reveals that he has filed several

habeas petitions in San Bernardino County, where he was convicted, and in Riverside County,

where he is confined. Plaintiff indicates that he has filed multiple habeas petitions in the United

States District Court for the Central District of California. He alleges that the most recent of

those petitions was disposed of in 2004 after he appealed to the United States Supreme Court and

“resubmitted to 9th Cir,” after which he “resubmitted to this court for review.”

Plaintiff seeks relief as follows:

1. Order plaintiff release [sic] from condition [sic] of slavery, and

without parole.

2. Release plaintiff from condition in state prison, related to

genocide, kidnapping, false imprisonment, and denied work time

good/time credits from prior contracts plea bargains, and racial and

discrimantion [sic] policy and pratices [sic].

Case 2:05-cv-00046-MCE -DAD Document 14 Filed 08/29/05 Page 3 of 6
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

4

3. Hold each and every defendents [sic] and divers [sic] reliable

[sic] for court costs and for attorney fees, and the cost of requested

jury trial, and acts that constitute – treason and or imprision [sic].

4. Order punitive and compensation damages for pain and

sufferings.

5. Jury trial on all triable issues.

(Compl. at page numbered 8.) Plaintiff alleges numerous violations of his rights during criminal

proceedings in San Bernardino County in 2002. Plaintiff also complains of the conditions of his

confinement and the calculation of time credits by CDC officials, In a separate document titled

“Exhaustion of Remedies, in Support of Civil Rights Complaint,” plaintiff alleges that he is

being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and conditions of slavery.

Plaintiff’s sole federal remedy for obtaining relief with regard to his conviction

and sentence is a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 

Plaintiff cannot challenge the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence in a civil rights

action. It appears from plaintiff’s allegations that he has already challenged his San Bernardino

County conviction and sentence in the United States District Court for the Central District of

California, where venue is proper. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California cannot “review” the decisions of any other district court, a federal appellate court, or

the United States Supreme Court. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s habeas

claims, as presented in this civil rights action, are legally frivolous and fail to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. These claims must be dismissed.

Plaintiff’s claims for damages arising from false imprisonment and from denial of

time credits must also be dismissed. Where a prisoner seeks money damages based on

allegations that necessarily imply the invalidity of his continued confinement, the prisoner may

not seek damages pursuant to § 1983 until he establishes, through appropriate state or federal

remedies, that his confinement is illegal. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

Case 2:05-cv-00046-MCE -DAD Document 14 Filed 08/29/05 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Plaintiff’s claims concerning his conditions of confinement arose in Riverside

County. The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all

defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject

of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is

no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Venue of this

action is technically proper in the Eastern District of California because plaintiff has sued one or

more defendants who reside in this district. However, plaintiff has alleged no facts establishing a

causal link between defendant Woodford, who holds a supervisorial position, and any claimed

violation of his rights. Plaintiff’s complaint contains no allegations against any of the

supervisorial defendants listed on a separate page. Because plaintiff has sued supervisorial

defendants for damages solely on a theory of respondeat superior, all of these defendants are

subject to dismissal from the action. Venue would then be improper in this district because no

other defendant resides here. Plaintiff’s claims concerning the conditions of his confinement in

Ironwood State Prison should be brought and litigated in the United States District Court for the

Central District of California.

Due to the defects of plaintiff’s pleading and plaintiff’s own allegations

concerning other actions previously brought in the Central District of California, this court will

not transfer the present action to the Central District of California. The undersigned will

recommend that all of plaintiff’s claims be dismissed without prejudice to pursuit in the proper

form of action in the proper court, if plaintiff has not previously brought such actions. Plaintiff’s

motion for in forma pauperis status should be denied because this civil rights action fails to state

a civil rights claim upon which relief may be granted in this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00046-MCE -DAD Document 14 Filed 08/29/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 10, 2005 motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied;

and

2. All claims in this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

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

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 29, 2005.

DAD:13

cann0046.56

Case 2:05-cv-00046-MCE -DAD Document 14 Filed 08/29/05 Page 6 of 6