Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01628/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01628-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW ANDREW DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEWARD SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-01628-NONE-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND

DISMISSING ACTION, WITH 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM

(Doc. No. 20)

Plaintiff Matthew Andrew Davis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 This matter 

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On January 28, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure 

to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 20.) The 

findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.

 

1 As noted in the magistrate judge’s December 28, 2018 screening order, plaintiff 

asserts that he is visually impaired and requires large print documents in order to be 

able to read. As an accommodation, the court is providing this order in large print.

Case 1:18-cv-01628-DAD-BAM Document 23 Filed 02/25/20 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

at 10.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

the court finds that the findings and recommendation are supported by the record 

and by proper analysis.

Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment 

Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (CSATF). The findings and recommendations 

correctly focus on the heart of plaintiff’s second amended complaint, namely his 

allegation that: 

I am a mental disordered offender (MDO) and I have 

requested a mental health evaluation report so that I can 

present these documents to the Board of Prison Hearings, 

but I have been denied. I went to Board of Prison Hearings 

(BPH) in 2016, 2017, and 2018. I was denied parole 

because I was not eligible under MDO, proposition 57. I 

was denied parole because the Defendants did not provide 

staff assistance so that I could understand the proceedings 

and I was denied the opportunity to present documents to 

show that I am mentally suitable for parole.

(Doc. No. 19 at 3-4.) In terms of relief, plaintiff requests: “staff assistance at my 

parole hearings. I am documented as having a learning disability, developmental 

disorder and MDO. I would like a fair parole hearing.” (Id. at 5.)

The pending findings and recommendations correctly conclude that 

plaintiff’s allegations fail to state any claim under § 1983 because: (1) he fails to 

connect any of the thirteen named defendants to any alleged violation of his rights; 

and (2) a civil rights action challenging the procedures used in the denial of parole 

is subject to the “favorable termination” rule articulated in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 

U.S. 477, 483–84 (1994). Because plaintiff has failed to allege any facts 

demonstrating that the decision to deny parole has been reversed, expunged, or 

called into question by a state or federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 

his claims are barred by the favorable termination rule. See Butterfield v. Bail, 120 

F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff has been advised by the court of the 

Case 1:18-cv-01628-DAD-BAM Document 23 Filed 02/25/20 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

favorable termination rule and has previously been granted leave to amend but has 

failed to cure the identified defects of his complaint. As a result, dismissal for 

failure to state a claim without further leave to amend is appropriate. 

In addition, the findings and recommendations correctly explain that the 

exclusive method for plaintiff to assert a challenge to the validity of his continuing 

incarceration is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Here, however, because it is 

not entirely clear that plaintiff intends to pursue a habeas corpus petition in this 

court, it is generally appropriate for the court to decline to convert a § 1983 claim 

into a habeas petition. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendation issued on January 28, 2020, (ECF 

No. 20), are adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for 

purposes of closure and to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01628-DAD-BAM Document 23 Filed 02/25/20 Page 3 of 3