Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02846/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02846-0/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

27

28

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Maes846dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH MAES, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2846 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS MOOT

(Docket No. 2)

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning his parole revocation hearing. Plaintiff has named

numerous Defendants, including the Board of Prison Terms, his parole agent, his attorney

during the parole hearing, and others. Plaintiff alleges that he was coerced to admit his 

parole violation and agree to a ten-month sentence. Plaintiff contends that the hearing

officer was biased against him because his parole revocation was based upon a Driving

Under the Influence offense. Plaintiff also alleges: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel,

(2) that he is being illegally incarcerated beyond his projected release date; and (3) that

his parole agent made false claims in the parole violation report. Plaintiff requests that

the Court discharge him from custody, remove his “second striker” status and remove the

Case 5:05-cv-02846-JF Document 4 Filed 03/22/06 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Maes846dis 2

illegal year added to his sentence. Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages. The Court

concludes that Plaintiff’s claims are barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-

487 (1994). Accordingly, the complaint will be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

Plaintiff’s pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2) is DENIED as

moot.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek 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 that 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person

acting under the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696,

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff contends that he was coerced to admit to a parole violation and that his

counsel was ineffective. He maintains that the Parole Board was biased against him and

that his parole agent falsified parole reports. Plaintiff requests that the Court discharge

his sentence, remove his “second striker” status and remove the illegal year added to his

sentence. Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages. However, the Court concludes that

Plaintiff’s claims challenge the validity of his sentence and are therefore barred under

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a

Case 5:05-cv-02846-JF Document 4 Filed 03/22/06 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

27

28

1

 Where Plaintiff seeks to challenge either the fact or duration of his confinement, his sole

remedy is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursunt to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after exhausting

state judicial remedies. See Calderon v Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998). Any such claim

therefore is dismissed without prejudice. See Trimble v City of Santa Rosa, 49 F. 3d 583, 586

(9th Cir. 1995).

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Maes846dis 3

conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or

sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared

invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question

by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 486-87 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or

sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487.

When a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must

therefore consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply

the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed

unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been

invalidated. See id. A judgment in favor of the plaintiff here would imply the invalidity

of his parole revocation and sentence which has not already been invalidated. The instant

allegations therefore fail to state a cognizable claim under § 1983 and must be

DISMISSED without prejudice. See Edwards v Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 649 (1997);

Trimble v City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995).1 Accordingly, the instant

complaint is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling a new complaint in a new

action if his disciplinary hearing is later invalidated.

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 5:05-cv-02846-JF Document 4 Filed 03/22/06 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Maes846dis 4

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a

cognizable claim under § 1983. In light of the dismissal, Plaintiff’s pending motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall

terminate all pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/22/06

 JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02846-JF Document 4 Filed 03/22/06 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Maes846dis 5

This is to certify that a copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Christopher Joseph Maes

J-74057

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

Case 5:05-cv-02846-JF Document 4 Filed 03/22/06 Page 5 of 5