Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00460/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00460-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL D. BAILEY, CASE NO. CV-F-06-0460 OWW DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION

vs.

DERRAL ADAMS,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint seeking relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 21, 2006. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that Warden Derral

Adams altered his custody time and time credits from 80% to 85%. Plaintiff seeks an order modifying

his original term start date and reinstating his pre-sentence credits.

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). “Notwithstanding any

filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time

if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:06-cv-00460-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

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. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984),

citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also 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 astrue the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital 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).

When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a constitutional

challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied

11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction

or imprisonment, “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’sissuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (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 488. 

Here, plaintiff alleges that Warden Adams wrongfully altered his actual time in custody and his

credit earning status. Plaintiff seeks an order re-instaitng his original term start date and granting him

130 days pre-sentence credits. Plaintiff also requests an order stating that he is to serve 80% of his

sentence pursuant to an open plea agreement. Because plaintiff challenges the duration of his sentence,

his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff may not proceed with a civil rights action

because his challenge, if successful, would entitle him to an earlier release. The court therefore finds

that plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief under section 1983 and recommends that

this action be dismissed. Further, the court finds that the deficiency in the complaint is not capable of

being cured by amendment, and, therefore, leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448-49 (9 Cir. 1987). th

Case 1:06-cv-00460-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed in its entirety,

without leave to amend, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections

with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations." The 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 21, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00460-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 3