Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00829/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00829-3/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

KHALIFAH E.D. SAIF’ULLAH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0829 LKK GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF 

PRISON TERMS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed August

25, 2005. After carefully reviewing the record, the court recommends that this action be

dismissed.

Plaintiff alleges that he is challenging parole procedures. Plaintiff is serving a life

sentence for his 1980 conviction for kidnap by use of force. State prisoners may bring § 1983

actions challenging the constitutionality of state parole procedures. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 504

U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (2005). Plaintiff’s main claim appears to be that defendants were

required to set his release date pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1170.2. 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00829-LKK -GGH Document 10 Filed 02/23/06 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

2

Plaintiff’s claim that defendants did not properly follow state law does not

challenge the constitutionality of parole procedures. Rather, this claim is challenging the

interpretation and application of state law as it applies to plaintiff’s sentence. The alleged

improper application of state law is not subject to review by federal court. Lewis v. Jeffers, 497

U.S. 764, 779, 110 S.Ct. 3092, 2102 (1990). 

In any event, plaintiff’s claim alleging that defendants failed to follow Cal. Penal

Code § 1170.2. is without merit. Prior to July 1, 1977, California operated under an

indeterminate sentencing law (ISL) system. Guzman v. Morris, 644 F.2d 1295, 1296 (9 Cir. th

1981). On July 1, 1977, California’s Indeterminate Sentencing Law (DSL) went into effect. Id. 

As part of the conversion from the ISL to the DSL, certain indeterminate sentences were to be

“reset.” Id. The provisions of Cal. Penal Code § 1170.2 apply to the resetting of sentences

imposed for felonies committed prior to July 1, 1977. 

Plaintiff’s commitment offense occurred, and plaintiff was sentenced, after July 1,

1977, under the indeterminate sentencing provisions of the determinate sentencing law. Second

Amended Complaint, Exhibit B. Plaintiff’s life sentence is an indeterminate sentence. In re

Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1078, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417, 426 (2005). As such, plaintiff

“becomes eligible for parole after serving [s] minimum term [] of confinement,” but the

determination of his actual term of confinement rests with the Board of Prison Terms. Id. 

Plaintiff’s claim that he was entitled to release on a date set pursuant to the provisions of Cal.

Penal Code § 1170.2 is without merit; that section has no application to plaintiff. 

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants follow an unofficial policy of denying parole

to all inmates serving life terms. Plaintiff also suggests that the most recent decision finding him

unsuitable for parole was not supported by some evidence. These claims do not challenge parole

procedures. Rather, these claims challenge the validity of the decisions finding plaintiff

unsuitable for parole and should be raised in a habeas corpus petition. For this reason, these

claims should be dismissed. 

Case 2:05-cv-00829-LKK -GGH Document 10 Filed 02/23/06 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

3

For the reasons discussed above, the court recommends that this action be

dismissed.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

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. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 2/22/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

saif829.dis

Case 2:05-cv-00829-LKK -GGH Document 10 Filed 02/23/06 Page 3 of 3