Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00902/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00902-0/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

MARK FREEMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0902 DFL PAN P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

seeking relief under 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 General Order No. 262.

On December 7, 2004, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

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

file, the court finds that plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring this claim because he has not

suffered an injury. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130

Case 2:04-cv-00902-DFL-PAN Document 9 Filed 06/09/06 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

2

(1992) (holding that standing requires a plaintiff to state “an injury in fact” that is not

“hypothetical”). Plaintiff states in his objections that he seeks to have the rules violation report

removed from his records because it will prevent him from being paroled. However, he has not

had an adverse ruling from a parole board based upon the report and may never receive such a

ruling. To satisfy the requirements for standing on the claim that this rules violation report is

unfounded, plaintiff must wait until he is denied parole on this ground and then petition for writ

of habeas corpus. See Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that

prisoner could not bring an action under § 1983 to challenge improper parole hearing); Elliott v.

United States, 572 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1978) (holding that challenge to improper denial of

parole should be brought as a petition for writ of habeas corpus).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 7, 2004, are VACATED;

and 

2. This action is DISMISSED for lack of standing.

DATED: 6/8/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00902-DFL-PAN Document 9 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 2