Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00804/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00804-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.08\McCright00804_dismissal.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLVIN MCCRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et

al.,

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-00804 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket Nos. 2, 8 & 9)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) in

Crescent City, has filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging

that current state procedures for determining maximum release dates violate ex post

facto and due process. Plaintiff seeks damages as well as injunctive and declaratory

relief. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 4 & 7)

will be addressed in a separate order. The Court now reviews the complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

Case 5:08-cv-00804-JW Document 11 Filed 08/14/08 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.08\McCright00804_dismissal.wpd 2

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or

“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. §

1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 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 alleged violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

According to the complaint, plaintiff was convicted in 1972 of first degree

murder and sentenced to 7 years to life in state prison under the Indeterminate

Sentencing Law (“ISL”). (Compl. 3.) Plaintiff claims that state law required the

Board of Parole Terms (“BPT”) to create a policy to fix the primary terms of all ISL

prisoners. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants continued to maintain parole

procedures that were more onerous than mandated under state law, and resulted in

the BPT repeatedly refusing to “fix his primary term” and denying parole. (Id. at 7.) 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ “actions, policies and practices... violate federal ex

post facto laws and plaintiff’s due process right....” (Id. at 8.) 

In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

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

render a 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

Case 5:08-cv-00804-JW Document 11 Filed 08/14/08 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.08\McCright00804_dismissal.wpd 3

damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so

invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. 

 “Heck applies to proceedings [that] call into question the fact or duration of

parole.” Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 851

(1995). A challenge to the denial of parole, whether based upon procedural defects

in the parole hearing or upon allegations that parole was improperly denied on the

merits, directly implicates the validity of the prisoner’s continued confinement. See

Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997). Similarly, a challenge to

the denial of parole by inmates convicted of certain offenses, based upon allegations

of deceit and bias in the administration of the state’s parole statutes, implies the

invalidity of the inmates’ confinement “insofar as their prolonged incarcerations are

due to the purported bias of state officials.” McQuillion, 369 F.3d at 1097-98

(disclaimer in complaint that the inmates “do not seek relief that implicates the

continuing validity of their confinement” does not take their claims outside of

Heck’s bar). Therefore, Heck does not permit a challenge to the procedures used in

a denial of parole unless the parole board’s decision has been reversed, expunged,

set aside or called into question. See id.; Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 44-45 (8th

Cir. 1995). Nor may a plaintiff question the validity of the confinement resulting

from a parole-revocation hearing if he does not allege that the parole board’s

decision has been reversed, expunged, set aside or called into question. See Littles

v. Bd. of Pardons and Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995); see also

McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995) (Heck

bars § 1983 action challenging revocation of supervised release). 

Plaintiff’s action falls squarely within the realm of cases barred by Heck. 

Plaintiff essentially claims that the defendants’ allegedly unlawful polices and

procedures are the cause of his continual denial of parole and prolonged

confinement. If true, his claims would directly implicate the validity of the his

continued confinement. See Butterfield, 120 F.3d at 1024; McQuillion, 369 F.3d at

Case 5:08-cv-00804-JW Document 11 Filed 08/14/08 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.08\McCright00804_dismissal.wpd 4

1097-98. Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to allege that the parole board’s decision

has since been reversed, expunged, set aside or called into question. See Littles, 68

F.3d at 123. If, for example, Plaintiff’s pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action

challenging the BPT’s decision denying parole in 2003, McCright v. McGrath, No.

C 05-03266 JW (PR), results in a reversal of the BPT’s decision, only then could

plaintiff bring a cognizable claim under § 1983 for damages resulting from

defendants’ unconstitutional actions. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-487. Until then,

plaintiff’s action is barred by Heck. Id. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims are

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

C. Pending Motions

1. Motion to Relate Cases

Plaintiff filed a motion to relate the instant action (Docket No. 2) to

other cases: 1) McCright v. McGrath, No. C 99-21263 JW (PR) (May 30, 2000);

and 2) McCright v. McGrath, No. C 05-03266 JW (PR). (Docket No. 2.) The first

case was a § 1983 complaint in which plaintiff raised similar if not identical claims

to the instant complaint. That case was dismissed under Heck. See McCright v.

McGrath, No. C 99-21263 JW (PR). The second case, as mentioned above, is a 

§ 2254 habeas action pending in this Court. 

With respect to Case No. C 99-21263 JW (PR), plaintiff asks this Court to

reconsider the dismissal of the action, claiming that it was not barred by Heck

because of the Supreme Court decision in Wilkinson v. Dotson, [citation omitted]

because “the civil claim challenges state procedures alleged to be in violation of

federal “ex post facto” and “due process law[”]; and seeks damages not related to

the fact or duration of a sentence.” (Docket No. 2 at 1.) Plaintiff is mistaken. The

Supreme Court held in Wilkinson that if success in the § 1983 suit would necessarily

demonstrate the invalidity of the confinement or its duration, the § 1983 suit is

barred no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief) and no matter the

target of the suit (conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings). Id.

Case 5:08-cv-00804-JW Document 11 Filed 08/14/08 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.08\McCright00804_dismissal.wpd 5

at 81. As discussed above, the success of plaintiff’s claims would certainly

implicate the unconstitutionality of the duration of his confinement. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s motion for this Court to reconsider the dismissal and relate the instant

case to McCright v. McGrath, No. C 99-21263 JW (PR), is DENIED. (Docket No.

2.) 

With respect to the motion to relate the instant action to the habeas action

under Case No. C 05-03266 JW (PR), plaintiff cannot proceed with the claims in the

instant complaint without first prevailing in the habeas action as discussed above. 

Therefore the motion to relate the case to Case No. C 05-03266 JW (PR) is

DENIED. (Docket No. 2.) 

2. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 8) is denied

for lack of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 

3. Motion for Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff filed a motion for an order to show cause and temporary

restraining order (“TRO”). (Docket No. 9.) The motion for an order to show cause

is DENIED since the action is barred by Heck and is dismissed without prejudice. 

Furthermore, plaintiff’s request for a TRO is DENIED for failure to satisfying the

notice requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Prior to granting a

preliminary injunction, notice to the adverse party is required. Fed. R. Civ. P.

65(a)(1). A motion for preliminary injunction therefore cannot be decided until the

parties to the action are served, and they have not yet been served here. See Zepeda

v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). A TRO may be granted without written

or oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s attorney if: (1) it clearly appears

from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate

and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse

party or the party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s

Case 5:08-cv-00804-JW Document 11 Filed 08/14/08 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.08\McCright00804_dismissal.wpd 6

attorney (plaintiff himself in this case, as he proceeds pro se) certifies in writing the

efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting the

claim that notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Plaintiff has not

satisfied both requirements. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The clerk shall close the file. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2, 8 and 9. 

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

August 13, 2008 

Case 5:08-cv-00804-JW Document 11 Filed 08/14/08 Page 6 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLVIN MCCRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV08-00804 JW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Colvin McCright B-08892

Pelican Bay State Prison

5905 Lake Earl Drive

P. O. Box 7500

Crescent City, Ca 95532

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

8/13/2008 8/13/2008 /s/

Case 5:08-cv-00804-JW Document 11 Filed 08/14/08 Page 7 of 7