Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05265/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05265-0/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

VINCENT J. SAUCEDO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT ) 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 03-5265 OWW DLB P 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN

BE GRANTED

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Pending before the Court is the amended complaint, filed July

8, 2003, which plaintiff filed after the Court dismissed his original complaint for failure to state a

claim upon which relief could be granted. 

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); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend

Case 1:03-cv-05265-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 03/15/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

Plaintiff names as defendants the California Department of Corrections, the California Board

of Prison Terms and the State of California. Plaintiff once again alleges that he and other nonviolent offenders housed at Avenal State Prison are being denied equal protection and due process. 

Plaintiff seeks to challenge a Department of Corrections program allowing non-violent inmates in

fire-fighting and work-camps to receive two days’ good time credit for each day worked, resulting in

an early release date. Plaintiff alleges he and other inmates with INS holds are denied participation

in the program which amounts to discrimination on the basis of race in violation of the Equal

Protection Clause. 

As plaintiff was previously advised, prisoners have no liberty interest in earning work time

credits or participating in work programs. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1094-95 (9th Cir.

1986). A deprivation that affects the duration of a prisoner’s sentence, such a the loss of good time

credits may, in some circumstances, implicate due process concerns. Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S.

472, 483-4 (1995) (citing with approval Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974) (statecreated interest in shortened prison sentence is an interest of “real substance”)). Such a liberty

interest is limited to circumstances in which time credits were revoked as a disciplinary action;

however, such a claim is not cognizable under § 1983 unless the result of such disciplinary action

has been previously overturned or otherwise invalidated. Edwards v. Balisok, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 1587

(1997). Moreover, the act of revoking time credits must be distinguished from the act of limiting a

prisoner’s ability to prospectively earn time credits. In the instant case, plaintiff merely complaints

that he was not given the opportunity to participate in certain fire and work camp programs in which

extra time credits may be earned. Because plaintiff has no liberty interest in earning good time

credits, the complaint fails to state a claim for violation of due process.

With respect to the claim of racial discrimination, plaintiff has failed to allege adequate facts

to state a claim for an equal protection violation. Equal protection claims arise when a charge is

made that similarly situated individuals are treated differently without a rational relationship to a

Case 1:03-cv-05265-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 03/15/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

legitimate state purpose. See San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1972). In order

to state a § 1983 claim based on a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment, a plaintiff must allege and that defendants acted with intentional discrimination against

a class of inmates which included plaintiff. Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1010 (9th Cir.

1985); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Henderson, 940 F.2d 465, 471 (9th Cir. 1991). Because

plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to indicate that any person acted with intentional discrimination

against a protected class, this claim must be dismissed.

Finally, the only named defendants, the California Department of Corrections, the Board of

Prison Terms and the State of California, are immune from suit. Plaintiff may not sustain an action

against a state agency. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought

against an unconsenting state. Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053

(9th Cir. 1991)(citation omitted); see also Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1122

(1996); Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993);

Austin v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 939 F.2d 676, 677 (9th Cir. 1991). The Eleventh Amendment bars

suits against state agencies as well as those where the state itself is named as a defendant. See

Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Dep’t of Tranp., 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996);

Brook, 951 F.2d at 1053; Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)(concluding that

Nevada Department of Prisons was a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity);

Mitchell v. Los Angeles Community College Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). Because the

named defendants are state agencies, they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.

In summary, the amended complaint, like the original complaint fails to state any cognizable

claims for relief and therefore the Court recommends that this action be dismissed in its entirety. In

so recommending, the Court doe not recommend that plaintiff be granted an additional opportunity

to filed an amended complaint because he was already granted this opportunity and was unable to

cure the deficiencies identified by the Court in its prior order. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the amended complaint be

dismissed, without leave to amend, thereby concluding this action in its entirety. 

Case 1:03-cv-05265-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 03/15/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

It is Ordered that these Findings and Recommendations 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

THIRTY (30) DAYS after being served with the 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 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: March 13, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05265-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 03/15/06 Page 4 of 4