Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00692/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00692-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

LEONARD R. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00692-LJO-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE

GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983

(Doc. 1)

I. Screening Order

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Leonard R. Smith (“plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action.

Plaintiff is an inmate housed at the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi, where

the events at issue in this action allegedly occurred. Plaintiff brought suit in Kern County Superior

Court against defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Associate

Warden F. Gonzalez, Chief Deputy Warden L. L. Schulteis, and Does 1-100. Defendants Gonzalez

and Schulteis removed the action to this court on May 8, 2007. 

B. Screening Requirement

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

///

Case 1:07-cv-00692-LJO-LJO Document 8 Filed 09/04/07 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

“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). 

“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. However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s

factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation

of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially

pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v.

Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

C. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges claims for violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, arising from prison disciplinary

hearing proceedings at which plaintiff lost sixty-one days of time credits. Plaintiff seeks money

damages and the restoration of his time credits.

Claims brought against prison officials for violation of prisoners’ constitutional rights are

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “[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). In this instance, the punishment imposed

at the disciplinary hearing affects the duration of plaintiff’s sentence. As a result, plaintiff’s section

1983 due process and Eighth Amendment claims are barred until such time as plaintiff invalidates

///

Case 1:07-cv-00692-LJO-LJO Document 8 Filed 09/04/07 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

the result of the disciplinary hearing via the prison’s administrative process or a petition for writ of

habeas corpus. Dismissal of this action is required.

II. Order

Based on the foregoing, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00692-LJO-LJO Document 8 Filed 09/04/07 Page 3 of 3