Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00520-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID VALLIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEN CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00520-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE

GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983

(Doc. 1)

ORDER THAT DISMISSAL COUNTS AS A

STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)

Plaintiff David Vallier (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 3, 2007.

Plaintiff is incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran. Plaintiff alleges that his rights under

the United States Constitution were violated in conjunction with the issuance of Rules Violation

Report for battery on an inmate with serious bodily injury, and the finding of guilt on the charge,

which resulted in the forfeiture of three-hundred sixty days of time credits. (Doc. 1, pg. 21.)

Plaintiff seeks money damages and equitable relief, including the restoration of time credits and

immediate release from custody. 

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

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

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner 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).

Case 1:07-cv-00520-LJO -SMS Document 8 Filed 06/19/07 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

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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).

“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a complaint only

if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with

the allegations. Id. at 514. 

In this instance, plaintiff is challenging the events relating to the disciplinary charge against

him and the disciplinary hearing at which he was assessed a time credit forfeiture. “[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.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-2, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 1248

(2005); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004); Edwards v. Balisok,

520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997). Because the finding of guilty affects the length of plaintiff’s sentence,

his claim is barred under section 1983 until such time as he invalidates the result of the disciplinary

hearing via the prison’s administrative remedy process or a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief.

Id. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00520-LJO -SMS Document 8 Filed 06/19/07 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

For the foregoing reason, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00520-LJO -SMS Document 8 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 3