Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00191/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00191-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMIEN BACA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0191 DFL DAD P

vs.

E.A. REYES, ORDER AND

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with

Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). Pursuant to the screening requirement, the court must dismiss claims that are legally

frivolous or malicious, claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and

claims that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1) and (2). Similarly, when a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court is

required to dismiss the case if the court determines at any time that the action is frivolous or

Case 2:06-cv-00191-DFL-DAD Document 6 Filed 05/02/06 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

 On March 13, 2006, the court received plaintiff’s notice of transfer to Salinas Valley 1

State Prison.

2

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at

327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an

arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989);

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim

that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the allegations of the complaint. See

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The court also construes

the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolves all doubts in the plaintiff’s

favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

In the present case, plaintiff has sued E.A. Reyes, a correctional officer and the

appeals coordinator at Mule Creek State Prison, where plaintiff was confined when he filed the

case. Plaintiff indicates that he filed a grievance concerning the facts relating to this complaint 1

and that the grievance process has not been completed. Plaintiff alleges as follows: On June 18,

2004, plaintiff was notified by defendant Reyes that plaintiff’s appeal from a disciplinary

conviction for possession of a deadly weapon was denied; plaintiff’s cellmate had claimed sole

ownership of the inmate-manufactured dart found in the inmates’ shared cell; defendant Reyes

Case 2:06-cv-00191-DFL-DAD Document 6 Filed 05/02/06 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

3

discriminated against plaintiff by finding him guilty on the basis of his gang association;

defendant Reyes expressed a biased opinion and denied the appeal on the basis of falsified

documents; plaintiff was assessed a ten-month term in SHU and lost 360 days of time credits. 

Plaintiff seeks his immediate release from prison, an award of $375,000, and damages in the

amount of $100 per day for every day he has been falsely detained in prison.

When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks

is the determination of his entitlement to an earlier or immediate release, his sole federal remedy

is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). The plaintiff in this

case filed his civil rights action concurrently with a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he

challenges his 2004 disciplinary conviction. See Baca v. Reyes, case No. CIV S-06-0185 MCE

DAD P. To the extent that plaintiff seeks habeas relief in this civil rights action, the claim must

be dismissed as legally frivolous and as duplicative of the habeas case.

When a prisoner seeks money damages based on allegations that imply the

invalidity of his confinement, the prisoner may not seek damages pursuant to § 1983 until he has

established, through appropriate state or federal remedies, that his confinement is in fact illegal. 

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). 

Plaintiff’s allegations in case No. CIV S-06-00185 reveal that his disciplinary conviction has not

been invalidated. Accordingly, plaintiff may not seek damages for his claims that he was falsely

convicted and is falsely detained. To the extent that plaintiff claims defendant Reyes is

responsible for plaintiff’s loss of 360 days of time credits, the claims for damages against the

defendant are not cognizable under § 1983 at this time and must be dismissed without prejudice. 

Plaintiff may re-file such claims in a new case at a later time if his disciplinary conviction is

“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, 512 U.S. at 486-87.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00191-DFL-DAD Document 6 Filed 05/02/06 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

4

The undersigned finds that plaintiff cannot amend his pleading to state a claim

that is cognizable in federal court at the present time. The complaint should therefore be

dismissed without leave to amend. See Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218, 1221-22 (9th Cir.

1989).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s January

27, 2006 application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for

failure to state a claim that is cognizable at the present time.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 1, 2006.

DAD:13

baca0191.56

Case 2:06-cv-00191-DFL-DAD Document 6 Filed 05/02/06 Page 4 of 4