Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01394/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01394-6/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

WILMONT WALLACE,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. MENDOZA-POWERS,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01394-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(Doc. 16)

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL COUNTS

AS A STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1915(G)

Plaintiff Wilmont Wallace (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On March 28, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the

Findings and Recommendations on April 26, 2007.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

Court finds the Findings andRecommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Plaintiff appears not to understand the basis for the dismissal of this action. Plaintiff was

found guilty in a prison disciplinary proceeding of refusing to work, and assessed a credit forfeiture

Case 1:06-cv-01394-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 05/09/07 Page 1 of 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

2

of thirty days. “[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). Because plaintiff lost time credits, which affects the

length of his sentence, he may not proceed under section 1983 unless and until he invalidates that

result of the disciplinary hearing, either through the inmate appeals process or via petition for writ

of habeas corpus. Id. This deficiency is not curable by naming different defendants in an amended

complaint, and plaintiff makes no argument that the result of the disciplinary hearing has been

invalidated. (Obj., 3:7-8.) Dismissal of this action is required. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 28, 2007, is adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

under section 1983, without prejudice to refiling upon invalidation of result of

plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing; and

3. This dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01394-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 05/09/07 Page 2 of 2