Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02354/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02354-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES R. FEATHERSTONE,

Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-2354-JFM (PC)

vs.

PERRY RENIFF, Sheriff, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his second amended complaint, filed May 26,

2009, plaintiff claims that defendant Matthew Cate, the Director of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights by failing to

remove a hold placed on plaintiff after his conviction and prison commitment were vacated. 

Plaintiff alleges that this hold prevented him from being released on bail from the Butte County

Jail pending retrial. Plaintiff seeks money damages. This matter is before the court on

defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

STANDARDS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures provides for motions to

dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

Case 2:08-cv-02354-LKK -JFM Document 45 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 5
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

2

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the court must accept as

true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197 

(2007), and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes,

416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint

must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must

contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007). However, “[s]pecific facts are not

necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” Erickson, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. at 2200

(quoting Bell Atlantic at 554, in turn quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION

Defendant Cate makes three arguments in support of dismissal. First, he contends

that the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff’s claim for money damages against defendant Cate in

his official capacity. This contention is correct. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 675-76

(1974).

Second, defendant Cate contends that he may not be held liable in his personal

capacity based solely on his supervisory role in CDCR and that plaintiff has failed to allege any

facts that suggest his personal involvement in the events complained of. However, plaintiff

specifically alleges that “defendant failed to remove a hold placed on plaintiff. . . .” Second

Amended Complaint at 3. This is a sufficient allegation of personal involvement to withstand

defendant’s second argument.

Finally, defendant Cate contends that plaintiff’s claim is barred by Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and its progeny. In Heck, the United States Supreme Court held

that a suit for damages on a civil rights claim concerning an allegedly unconstitutional

conviction or imprisonment cannot be maintained absent proof “that the conviction or sentence

has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state

Case 2:08-cv-02354-LKK -JFM Document 45 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 5
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

 On this motion to dismiss, the court may consider matters properly subject to judicial 1

notice without thereby converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment. See Emrich v.

Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1198 (9th Cir. 1988). 

3

tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. Under Heck, the

court is required to determine whether a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in this case would

necessarily invalidate his conviction or sentence. Id. If it would, the action must be dismissed

unless the plaintiff can show that the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. 

In support of this contention, defendant has requested that the court take judicial

notice of several court documents regarding petitions for collateral relief filed by plaintiff in the

state courts in connection with the state criminal proceedings underlying the claim at bar. 

Plaintiff has not opposed the request for judicial notice and, in any event, the documents tendered

by defendant are properly subject to judicial notice. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also Reyn’s Pasta

Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Burbank-GlendalePasadena Airport Auth. v. City of Burbank, 136 F.3d 1360, 1364 (9th Cir. 1998) (court “may

take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record.”). Accordingly,

defendant’s request for judicial notice will be granted. 

1

In the second amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that on November 21, 2007, a

state court judge granted a petition for writ of habeas corpus that plaintiff had filed, vacating

plaintiff’s criminal conviction and prison sentence. Second Amended Complaint, at 3. 

Defendant has requested judicial notice of the state court’s order, which finds that plaintiff

received ineffective assistance of counsel and provides that his no contest plea to the criminal

charges is withdrawn and his not guilty plea reasserted. Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) 42. 

With the granting of the petition, plaintiff’s prison commitment was vacated, and the court

further ordered plaintiff’s property “returned to the Butte County Jail.” RJN 43. Plaintiff was

returned to Butte County Jail pending retrial. See RJN 52. Thereafter, plaintiff was convicted

Case 2:08-cv-02354-LKK -JFM Document 45 Filed 04/30/10 Page 3 of 5
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

4

pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere and sentenced to five years in state prison. RJN 55. He

was given credit for 949 days spent in custody, including 158 days of actual local time and 316

days of local conduct credits. RJN 76, 78. 

Plaintiff’s claim implicates the validity of his confinement in the Butte County

Jail pending retrial. It also implicates the length of his continuing confinement because plaintiff

was granted credit against his current sentence for the time spent at the Butte County Jail. A

judgment in plaintiff’s favor would call into question the validity of his detention in the Butte

County Jail pending retrial and, correspondingly, the length of his current term of incarceration. 

The validity of the alleged parole hold and its impact on plaintiff’s detention at the Butte County

Jail has not been invalidated, and he is still serving the prison term against which that time was

credited. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim is barred by the rule announced in Heck v. Humphrey

and must be dismissed without prejudice. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.

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

1. Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign this action to a United States

District Judge; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant’s March 2, 2010 motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed. 

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, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

/////

Case 2:08-cv-02354-LKK -JFM Document 45 Filed 04/30/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

parties are 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: April 29, 2010.

12

feat2354.mtd

Case 2:08-cv-02354-LKK -JFM Document 45 Filed 04/30/10 Page 5 of 5