Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02365/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02365-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON LAMONT STRIBLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. L. JORDAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-02365-YGR (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a federal civil rights 

complaint. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons stated 

below, the court dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of review 

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 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 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).

B. Analysis

On November 8, 2016, the California voters approved The Public Safety and 

Rehabilitation Act of 2016 – Proposition (“Prop”) 57 – and it took effect the next day. People v. 

Case 4:18-cv-02365-YGR Document 10 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Marquez, 11 Cal. App. 5th 816, 821 (Cal. App. 2017); Cal. Const., Art. II, § 10(a). As relevant to 

this case, Proposition 57 removes the prosecuting officer’s discretion to initiate prosecutions 

against minors directly in a court of criminal jurisdiction and instead requires the prosecutor to file 

a motion to transfer the minor from juvenile court. See People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.

5th 299, 303 (2018). Specifically, Proposition 57 amended Section 707(a)(1), of the California 

Welfare and Institutions Code, which now provides as follows:

(a)(1) In any case in which a minor is alleged to be a person described 

in Section 602 by reason of the violation, when he or she was 16 years 

of age or older, of any offense listed in subdivision (b) or any other 

felony criminal statute, the district attorney or other appropriate 

prosecuting officer may make a motion to transfer the minor from 

juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction. The motion shall be 

made prior to the attachment of jeopardy. Upon the motion, the 

juvenile court shall order the probation officer to submit a report on 

the behavioral patterns and social history of the minor. The report 

shall include any written or oral statement offered by the victim 

pursuant to Section 656.2.

Cal. Wel. & Inst. Code § 707(a)(1).

Here, Plaintiff claims that “the section of Prop 57 [he] qualif[ies] for is the Juvenile Act.” 

Dkt. 1 at 4. The record shows that he was received at the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation at the age of 19 on November 21, 2008. Dkt. 1-3 at 1. He received a total term 

of thirteen years and four months for Battery on Emergency Personnel and Second Degree 

Robbery. Id. 

Plaintiff argues that Proposition 57 should be applied retroactively, and he claims as 

follows:

if no prosecutor’s motion was granted stipulating that the minor was 

unfit for juvenile court, then any adult court conviction of the minor 

is illegal and they have to be released. Seeing I [ ]qualify for this I 

was waiting to be released at any moment[’]s notice . . . .

Dkt. 1 at 4. The record shows that Plaintiff’s 602 inmate appeal requesting to be released under 

the juvenile act pursuant to Prop 57 was denied, and according to the record it was denied at the 

first level of appeal as follows:

Under Prop 57 juvenile court judges can make [a] determination, 

upon [the] prosecutor[’s] motion, whether juveniles age 14 and older 

should be prosecuted and sentenced as adults for specified offenses. 

This consideration will not be retroactive but shall commence on May 

1, 2017. Therefore, you are excluded from this portion of the Prop 57 

Case 4:18-cv-02365-YGR Document 10 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

process.

Dkt. 1-3 at 1. On April 13, 2018, the 602 appeal was denied at the third level of review. Dkt. 9 at 

3. In People v. Superior Court (Lara), the California Supreme Court held that the transfer hearing 

required by Proposition 57 applies only to juveniles charged directly in adult court whose 

judgment was not final at the time Proposition 57 was enacted. See 4 Cal. 5th at 303-04

(emphasis added). It thus seems that pursuant to Lara, the CDCR determined that Proposition 57 

does not apply retroactively to Plaintiff, whose 2008 judgment was final before Proposition 57 

was enacted. 

In essence, in Plaintiff’s complaint, he alleges that he is serving an “illegal” sentence and

that the CDCR’s interpretation of Prop 57 violates the California Constitution because “everything 

consisting of Prop 57 is retroactive” and he “remain[s] kidnapped and false[ly] imprisoned in state 

prison.” Dkt. 1 at 4.

Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed. Section 1983 provides a remedy only for violation of 

the U.S. Constitution or law or treaties of the United States, not state law. Swarthout v. Cooke, 

562 U.S. 216, 222 (2011) (the responsibility for assuring that the constitutionally adequate 

procedures governing California’s parole system are properly applied rests with California courts). 

State courts “are the ultimate expositors of state law.” Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 691 

(1975). Plaintiff has not suggested that his exclusion from consideration under Prop 57 violates 

the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

For this reason, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED under the authority of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

The Clerk of the Court shall terminate any pending motions as moot and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

March 4, 2020

Case 4:18-cv-02365-YGR Document 10 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 3