Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02790/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02790-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN HOLLIS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

D. CAPLAN,

Defendant . /

No. C 06-2790 TEH (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Marvin Hollis, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding the conditions of his confinement at that

facility. Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2). 

That motion is GRANTED in a separate order, filed simultaneously. On October 5, 2006,

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (docket no. 5). The complaint is now before the court

for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that Defendant Caplan has violated his civil rights by

retaliating against him for use of the inmate administrative grievance system, by falsely

accusing him of a rule violation. In the complaint, Plaintiff does not identify anything about

the disciplinary proceeding, including the outcome or whether he was subjected to any

penalty based on the guilty finding. Plaintiff seeks damages.

Case 3:06-cv-02790-TEH Document 6 Filed 10/16/06 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

2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable

claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

such relief. See id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

1. Retaliation

Ordinarily, retaliation by a state actor for the exercise of a constitutional right is

actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if the act, when taken for different reasons, would

have been proper. See Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283-84 (1977). 

Retaliation, though it is not expressly referred to in the Constitution, is actionable because

retaliatory actions may tend to chill individuals' exercise of constitutional rights. See Perry

v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972). A prisoner suing prison officials under § 1983 for

retaliation must allege that he was retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights

and that the retaliatory action did not advance legitimate penological goals, such as

preserving institutional order and discipline. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th

Cir. 1995); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994). 

2. Heck

However, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a

Case 3:06-cv-02790-TEH Document 6 Filed 10/16/06 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

3

conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 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, 486-487

(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 487. 

Where a claim would, if successful, “necessarily accelerate” the prisoner’s release on

parole, Heck applies. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2003) (interpreting

Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818 (9th Cir. 1997)). But cf. id. at 858 (interpreting Bostic v.

Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1989), to hold that Heck applies where expungement of a

disciplinary finding is “likely to accelerate” the prisoner’s eligibility for parole); id. (“[T]he

likelihood of the effect on the overall length of the prisoner’s sentence from a successful

§ 1983 action determines the availability of habeas corpus” and thus the applicability of

Heck). Heck bars a claim of unconstitutional deprivation of time credits because such a

claim necessarily calls into question the lawfulness of the plaintiff's continuing confinement,

i.e., it implicates the duration of the plaintiff's sentence

In this case, Plaintiff has not identified either whether he was found guilty of a rules

violation, whether it resulted in the loss of good time credit for the disciplinary violation, or

whether the finding, if any, has been set aside. Plaintiff must provide that information to the

Court, so that the Court may determine how to proceed on the complaint. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as

indicated above, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. The pleading must be

simple and concise and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and

the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to file a proper

amended complaint within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this action.

Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original complaint

and all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the amended complaint will

Case 3:06-cv-02790-TEH Document 6 Filed 10/16/06 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

4

not be considered by the court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/16/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02790-TEH Document 6 Filed 10/16/06 Page 4 of 4