Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05860/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05860-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH BRAGGS, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-5860 JSW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, currently incarcerated by the State of California at Pelican Bay State

Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is

largely incomprehensible, but apparently challenges certain aspects of Plaintiff’s

criminal trial. This order reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and

dismisses the complaint for the reasons set forth below. Plaintiff has neither paid the

filing fee nor filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint is largely incomprehensible, commencing with a discussion

of Plaintiff’s desire to join the military and to act as an undercover operative on behalf of

the U.S. government, and continues at length about the ills of child molestation and

celibacy in prison. The complaint concludes with a discussion of Plaintiff’s desire to

challenge the failure of 3 psychiatrists who were aware of Plaintiff’s mental condition

Case 3:09-cv-05860-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 5
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

which he describes as “severe...skizo effective by polar disorder [sic]” to testify on his

behalf at his trial, where he presented an insanity defense.

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek 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 which 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 id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person

acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claim

In this case, Plaintiff has sued the State of California. However, Plaintiff’s

complaint fails to set forth any comprehensible allegations from which the Court can

discern a legitimate basis for his complaint. 

A claim is frivolous if it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or is

clearly lacking any factual basis. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 

Although a complaint is not "frivolous" within the meaning of sections 1915A and

1915(e)(2) because it fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) ("Rule 12(b)(6)"), see Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 331, failure to state a claim is a

separate basis for dismissal under sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2). 

A dismissal as legally frivolous is proper only if the legal theory lacks an arguable

basis, while under Rule 12(b)(6) a court may dismiss a claim on a dispositive issue of

Case 3:09-cv-05860-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 5
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

law without regard to whether it is based on an outlandish theory or on a close but

ultimately unavailing one. See id. at 324-28. A claim that is totally incomprehensible

may be dismissed as frivolous as it is without an arguable basis in law. See Jackson v.

Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court is unable to ascertain a

cognizable federal claim from Plaintiff’s incomprehensible civil rights complaint. 

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to challenge the circumstances underlying his

criminal conviction, he has improperly filed his claim as a civil rights action. A district

court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the conditions of his

confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Wilwording v. Swenson,

404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). The opposite is not true, however: a civil rights complaint

seeking habeas relief should be dismissed without prejudice to bringing it as a petition

for writ of habeas corpus. Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir.

1995).

Any claim by a prisoner attacking the validity or duration of his confinement must

be brought under the habeas sections of Title 28 of the United States Code. Calderon v.

Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). A

prisoner must bring a habeas petition if the nature of his claim is such that it would

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or continuing confinement. Bogovich

v. Sandoval, 189 F.3d 999, 1002 (9th Cir. 1999) (ADA claim); Butterfield v. Bail, 120

F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997) (§ 1983 claim). In this case, it appears that the

substance of Plaintiff’s claim is an attack on the validity of his confinement such that

they necessarily imply the invalidity of his continuing confinement. To the extent that

Plaintiff seeks to challenge his conviction in this manner, they are DISMISSED without

prejudice. As such, the entire complaint fails to state a claim for relief and is dismissed. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall

Case 3:09-cv-05860-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/07/10 Page 3 of 5
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 4

close the file and enter judgment in accordance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 7, 2010

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05860-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/07/10 Page 4 of 5
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

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH BRAGGS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-05860 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 7, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Joseph Braggs

P.O. Box 7500

J58142

Crescent City, CA 95531

Dated: January 7, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:09-cv-05860-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/07/10 Page 5 of 5