Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02657/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02657-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYANT EUGENE HARRISON, No. 2:15-CV-2657-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

RONALD DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. Pending before the court

is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) and plaintiff’s response (Doc. 8) to the court’s order to show

cause why this action should not be dismissed.

In the order to show cause, the court stated:

In this case, plaintiff seeks release from custody based on

various alleged improprieties with respect to his underlying state court

conviction. When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody

and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or

immediate release, such a challenge is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and the prisoner’s sole federal remedy is a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see

1

Case 2:15-cv-02657-CMK Document 10 Filed 01/12/17 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

also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City

of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). 

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies

identified herein can be cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not

entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire action. See

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this

order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

Plaintiff is warned that failure to respond to this order may result in

dismissal of the action for the reasons outlined above, as well as for failure

to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. 

In his response, entitled “Amendment Exercising Claim(s),” plaintiff argues that he has been

improperly denied parole consideration. Plaintiff does not respond to the jurisdictional issue

addressed in the court’s order to show cause. 

Because plaintiff’s claims relate to the fact or duration of his confinement, and not

to the conditions of his confinement, they are not cognizable under § 1983.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim;

2. All pending motions are denied as moot; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 

DATED: January 12, 2017

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:15-cv-02657-CMK Document 10 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 2