Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00741/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00741-5/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID RAY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0741 MCE CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. On May 18, 2015, plaintiff’s complaint 

was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is now 

before the court.

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 2:15-cv-00741-MCE-CKD Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 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

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, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

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

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

In his amended complaint, plaintiff complains about actions taken by law enforcement 

officials which ultimately resulted in plaintiff being placed in state prison.1 Am. Compl. at 2. As 

plaintiff was informed in the court’s order dismissing his original complaint, when a state 

prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks is the determination of his 

entitlement to an earlier or immediate release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. 

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Furthermore, a prisoner cannot seek damages in 

a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action where a judgment in plaintiff’s favor would imply the invalidity of 

plaintiff’s conviction or sentence. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). For these 

reasons, plaintiff’s amended complaint should be dismissed. Leave to amend a second time 

should not be granted as it appears to be futile.

 

1

 Plaintiff also complains that his parents’ Constitutional rights were violated. However, 

plaintiff’s parents are not named as plaintiffs in this action.

Case 2:15-cv-00741-MCE-CKD Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed; and

2. This case be closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: August 25, 2015

1

will0741.frs

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00741-MCE-CKD Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 Page 3 of 3