Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05960/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05960-0/pdf.json

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

---

Case No. 16-cv-01060 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARLON CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUDGE PAUL DELUCCHI,

 Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05960 NC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

1

 Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons that follow, the court dismisses the complaint 

for failing to state a claim.

BACKGROUND

I. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a 

 1 Petitioner has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 4.

Case 5:16-cv-05960-NC Document 8 Filed 11/30/16 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-01060 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 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 elements: (1) 

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) 

that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West 

v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Although Plaintiff’s complaint states that he is complaining about the conditions of 

confinement, in fact, he is challenging his criminal judgment. He states that he meets the 

eligibility requirements of California’s Proposition 47, and that he should not be confined 

based on a restitution order that is not related to his forgery convictions. He sues Superior 

Court Judge Paul Delucchi for denying Plaintiff’s request for resentencing. Plaintiff’s 

complaint fails to state a claim for relief.

First, Defendant is absolutely immune from suit. A state judge is absolutely 

immune from civil liability for damages for acts performed in his judicial capacity. See 

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967) (applying judicial immunity to actions under 

Case 5:16-cv-05960-NC Document 8 Filed 11/30/16 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-01060 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

42 U.S.C. § 1983). Judicial immunity is an immunity from suit for damages, not just from 

an ultimate assessment of damages. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). 

Second, “‘[f]ederal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to 

imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the 

Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to 

the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of 

habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. 

Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who 

seeks “‘immediate or speedier release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 561 U.S. 

521, 525 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)). A claim that 

meets the statutory criteria of Section 1983 may be asserted unless it is within the core of 

habeas corpus because “its success would release the claimant from confinement or 

shorten its duration.” Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 841 (9th Cir. 2014). 

In Plaintiff’s complaint, he alleges that he is under false imprisonment because the 

alleged improper conviction “has authorized the State to impose the custody confinement 

past the date of 2-8-16.” Plaintiff is essentially arguing that success on his claim would 

shorten the duration of his confinement. Thus, his claim is within the core of habeas 

corpus and is not proper here.

For the above stated reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice

for failure to state a claim. 

Case 5:16-cv-05960-NC Document 8 Filed 11/30/16 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-01060 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

4

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

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk shall close the file, 

terminate all pending motions, and enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-05960-NC Document 8 Filed 11/30/16 Page 4 of 4