Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01709/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01709-2/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

TONY MARQUET CAMPBELL, No. CIV S-04-1709-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

G. WOODFORD,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s first amended

complaint (Doc. 9), filed on October 28, 2005.

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

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

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This

Case 2:04-cv-01709-MCE -CMK Document 10 Filed 11/10/05 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

2

means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the

claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

and conclusory. 

Plaintiff’s hand-written one-page first amended complaint names G. Woodford as

the only defendant. It appears that plaintiff is challenging the procedures used during the course

of a prison disciplinary proceeding which resulted in the loss of good-time credits. 

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

is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is not

cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the prisoner’s sole federal remedy is a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda,

131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir.

1995) (per curiam). Similarly, where a § 1983 action seeking monetary damages or declaratory

relief alleges constitutional violations which would necessarily imply the invalidity of the

prisoner’s underlying conviction or sentence, such a claim is not cognizable under § 1983 unless

the conviction or sentence has first been invalidated on appeal, by habeas petition, or through

some similar proceeding. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1987) (holding that § 1983

claim not cognizable because allegations of procedural defects and a biased hearing officer

implied the invalidity of the underlying prison disciplinary sanction); Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477, 483-84 (1994) (concluding that § 1983 not cognizable because allegations were akin to

malicious prosecution action which includes as an element a finding that the criminal proceeding

was concluded in plaintiff’s favor); Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 1997)

Case 2:04-cv-01709-MCE -CMK Document 10 Filed 11/10/05 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

(concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations of procedural defects were an

attempt to challenge substantive result in parole hearing); see also Neal, 131 F.3d at 824

(concluding that § 1983 claim was cognizable because challenge was to conditions for parole

eligibility and not to any particular parole determination). In particular, where the claim involves

loss of good-time credits as a result of an adverse prison disciplinary finding, the claim is not

cognizable. See Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir. 1997).

If a § 1983 complaint states claims which sound in habeas, the court should not

convert the complaint into a habeas petition. See Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir.

1997); Trimble, 49 F.3d at 586. Rather, such claims must be dismissed without prejudice and the

complaint should proceed on any remaining cognizable § 1983 claims. See Balisok, 520 U.S. at

649; Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Trimble, 49 F.3d at 585.

Here, plaintiff’s amended complaint challenges a prison disciplinary hearing which

resulted in the loss of good-time credits. Plaintiff’s claim implies the invalidity of the underlying

disciplinary action and, as such, is not cognizable under § 1983.

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed,

without prejudice.

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 ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01709-MCE -CMK Document 10 Filed 11/10/05 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

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

DATED: November 8, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01709-MCE -CMK Document 10 Filed 11/10/05 Page 4 of 4