Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00948/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00948-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL A. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD A. CUMMO & ASSOC., et 

al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00948-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO:

(1) DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE 

TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 6); AND

 (2) DIRECT CLERK’S OFFICE TO SEND 

PLAINTIFF HABEAS PETITION FORM

 FOURTEEN-DAY (14) OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

 CLERK TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

CASE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1.) 

On June 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened 

Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint is now before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 6.)

Case 1:15-cv-00948-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 11/12/15 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

2

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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, malicious,” or 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 on 

which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff names Richard A. Cummo, Scott Gross, and Steve Rector as Defendants.

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges essentially the following:

His attorneys and the D.A. Danna Pfeil committed misconduct in his criminal 

case. There was no evidence supporting his conviction. He did not understand the 

proceedings so his attorneys “1368 (PC)” him. (ECF No. 6 at 4.) He was not properly 

evaluated. As a result of his attorneys’ actions, he received eight more months without 

credits for pretrial detention.

Plaintiff seeks release to a drug program that will also provide him with mental 

health treatment.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Section 1983

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” 

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 

Section 1983 “‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a method 

for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 

393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144, n. 3 (1979)).

Case 1:15-cv-00948-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 11/12/15 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

3

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States was 

violated and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); see also Ketchum v. 

Cnty. of Alameda, 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations 

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff 

must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.’” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility 

that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as 

true, legal conclusions are not. Id. 

B. Heck Bar

Often referred to as the Heck bar, the favorable termination rule bars any civil 

rights claim which, if successful, would demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its 

duration. Such claims may be asserted only in a habeas corpus petition. Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994) (until and unless favorable termination of the 

conviction or sentence occurs, no cause of action under § 1983 exists); see also 

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48 (1997) (holding that a claim for monetary and 

declaratory relief challenging the validity of procedures used to deprive a prisoner of 

good-time credits is not cognizable under § 1983). 

Plaintiff challenges the evidence supporting his conviction and his sentence. He 

seeks to be let out of prison early and sent to drug and mental health treatment program. 

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck, and he must pursue such claims by filing a habeas 

corpus petition. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 2003) (the 

application of Heck “turns solely on whether a successful § 1983 action would 

Case 1:15-cv-00948-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 11/12/15 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

4

necessarily render invalid a conviction, sentence, or administrative sanction that affected 

the length of the prisoner’s confinement”). 

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s claims challenge the validity of his confinement, a challenge which may 

be brought only in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to 

state any claims that are cognizable under Section 1983. The deficiencies in Plaintiff’s 

FAC are not capable of being cured through amendment. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s FAC (ECF No. 6.) be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted; and

2. The Clerk’s Office be directed to send Plaintiff a habeas petition form.

It is HEREBY ORDERED that:

 The Clerk’s Office assign a District Court Judge to this case.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 

District Judge who will be assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the 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.” 

A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00948-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 11/12/15 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

5

Case 1:15-cv-00948-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 11/12/15 Page 5 of 5