Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01129/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01129-0/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

DION L. GOSSETT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1129 GEB KJM P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER AND

 / FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Several matters are pending before the court.

I. In Forma Pauperis Application

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is currently

without funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding

Case 2:06-cv-01129-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 01/23/07 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

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments shall be collected

and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in

plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

II. Complaint

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Case 2:06-cv-01129-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 01/23/07 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

3

Plaintiff claims defendants are unlawfully denying plaintiff good conduct sentence

credit. Plaintiff seeks an injunction granting plaintiff the good conduct credit he claims he has

already earned, a prospective injunction that will ensure that plaintiff receives good conduct

credit under certain circumstances, and damages. Compl. at 35.

To the extent plaintiff seeks sentence credit, plaintiff is informed that he must

pursue any relief that might result in the reduction of the length of his prison sentence through an

application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 500 (1973). Plaintiff is also informed that before plaintiff may bring a federal habeas corpus

action based upon any claim, that claim must be presented to and rejected by California Supreme

Court. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083,

1086 (9th Cir. 1985). 

To the extent plaintiff seeks damages, plaintiff’s claim is barred by Edwards v.

Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). In Edwards, the Supreme Court found that a judgment for

damages concerning the application of good conduct credit could not be had unless it was first

determined in an action for writ of habeas corpus that the plaintiff was in fact entitled to the good

conduct credit. Id. at 648.

For these reasons, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed. 

Plaintiff is free to pursue an application for writ of habeas corpus in another action before this

court and the court will order that the Clerk of the Court send plaintiff the court’s application for

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

III. Miscellaneous Motions

On May 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a document titled “petition for writ of mandate.”

In this document plaintiff seeks certain documents from the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff fails to cite any federal legal authority in support of his

“petition.” Therefore, it will be denied.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01129-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 01/23/07 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

On May 24, 2006, plaintiff also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in

which plaintiff asks that the court order California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

officials to award plaintiff the sentence credit he believes he has earned since January 10, 2005. 

For reasons stated above, the court cannot grant plaintiff this relief in a § 1983 action. The court

will recommend that plaintiff’s motion be denied. 

Finally, on June 30, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to appoint

plaintiff a “legal designee / runner,” at plaintiff’s expense. Because the court is recommending

that this action be dismissed, plaintiff’s motion will be denied. In any case, the court does not

appoint “runners” to assist litigants.

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

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

The fee shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the court’s form application

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

4. Petitioner’s May 24, 2006 “petition for writ of mandate” is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s June 30, 2006 motion for the court to appoint plaintiff a “legal

designee /s runner” be denied;” 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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

Case 2:06-cv-01129-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 01/23/07 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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 22, 2007.

1

goss1129.dis(5.24.06)

Case 2:06-cv-01129-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 01/23/07 Page 5 of 5