Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02966/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02966-0/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

TERMPSREF

WO TCK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeffrey James Faulkner,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2966-PHX-SMM (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Jeffrey James Faulkner, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex

in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(Doc.# 1.). The Court will dismiss this action for failure to state a claim.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $194.00. The remainder of the fee will

be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income each time the

amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a

separate Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and forward the fees

according to the statutory formula. 

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

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

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised

Case 2:06-cv-02966-SMM--JRI Document 3 Filed 01/09/07 Page 1 of 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

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). 

III. Complaint

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was convicted of aggravated assault on

March 8, 1988. Plaintiff contends that on June 12, 1999, ADOC policy number 902 "Inmate

legal access to courts" was implemented, which denied Arizona prisoners access to case law

cites, updated changes in the law and legal assistance. Plaintiff contends that on March 27,

2000, all Arizona prison libraries were removed. Plaintiff contends that in the year 2000, the

U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000),

which affected sentencing protocol nationwide. Plaintiff contends that he appealed his

conviction and sentence and, on March 30, 2000, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed and

remanded his sentence and set a re-sentence date due to an illegal sentence pertaining to a

breach of plea agreement by the state. Plaintiff contends that he had no knowledge of the

Apprendi case when he filed his appeal because the law library was not available.

Plaintiff contends that on January 4, 2001, he was re-sentenced by the trial court to

an aggravated maximum term imprisonment and the judge used the same four aggravating

factors found by the trial judge at the 1998 sentencing to again enhance his sentence. 

Plaintiff contends that on February 20, 2005, he was alerted to the new application of

Apprendi by a fellow prisoner. Thereafter, Plaintiff contends that he filed a Petition for Post

Conviction relief, but his petition was denied as untimely. Plaintiff contends that he appealed

to the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing that the Department of Corrections never made the

new law in Apprendi available to him and therefore, his time should have been tolled and he

should receive the sentencing benefit of Apprendi. The Court of Appeals denied his appeal

on February 17, 2006. Plaintiff essentially claims that because of the ADOC policy denying

inmates access to a prison law library, he was denied access to the Courts and missed court

deadlines, causing him to receive an aggravated sentence.

Plaintiff seeks permission to proceed to the Superior Court to file a Rule 32 petition,

Case 2:06-cv-02966-SMM--JRI Document 3 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

citing the case of Apprendi. Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

When a prisoner challenges the validity of his confinement, his sole federal remedy

is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). For civil rights

claims brought in § 1983 actions that also challenge the validity of confinement, the Supreme

Court announced a “favorable termination rule” as follows:

In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by action whose unlawfulness would

render a 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). Without such a showing of a “favorable

termination,” the person’s cause of action under § 1983 has not yet accrued. Id. at 489.

Thus, if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction or sentence, the complaint must be dismissed. Id. at 487.

Here, a judgment in Plaintiff's favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction and therefore, his claims are barred by Heck. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks

the invalidation of his sentence, or any relief which would result in immediate or speedier

release, his exclusive remedy is a petition for habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 488-90 (1973). However, Plaintiff should note that a prisoner attacking his state

conviction must exhaust state remedies before a federal court will entertain a petition for writ

of habeas corpus. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982).

For the foregoing reasons, this action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court will be directed to enter

judgment accordingly

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed with the Complaint,

is granted.

Case 2:06-cv-02966-SMM--JRI Document 3 Filed 01/09/07 Page 3 of 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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $194.00

(3) The Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(4) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal

for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 8th day of January, 2007.

 

Case 2:06-cv-02966-SMM--JRI Document 3 Filed 01/09/07 Page 4 of 4