Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01449/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01449-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAREY GRAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1449 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to have all matters in this action before a United 

States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On August 20, 2015, plaintiff’s complaint was 

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended 

complaint.

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

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

/////

Case 2:15-cv-01449-CKD Document 15 Filed 11/25/15 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

27

28

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, therefore, 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 complaint, or portion thereof, should only 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 or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); 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 must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

In his complaint, plaintiff seeks release from custody and compensation for time plaintiff 

alleges he has served in prison after the expiration of his sentence. To the extent plaintiff seeks 

release from prison, his only avenue in this court would be to seek a writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). The court will order the 

Clerk of the Court to send plaintiff the court’s form-application for writ of habeas corpus by state 

prisoners, but plaintiff is cautioned that he should not initiate a habeas action unless he has 

exhausted state court remedies with respect to his claims by presenting his claims to the 

California Supreme Court. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). With respect to 

plaintiff’s request for monetary compensation for false imprisonment, plaintiff’s claim is barred 

by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) because plaintiff has not shown that that his 

conviction or sentence has been declared unlawful by a tribunal authorized to make that 

determination.

Case 2:15-cv-01449-CKD Document 15 Filed 11/25/15 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

27

28

3

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s amended complaint will be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Leave to amend will not be granted a second time 

as that appears futile. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed.

2. This case is closed.

3. The court is directed to send plaintiff the court’s form-application for writ of habeas 

corpus by California prisoners. 

Dated: November 24, 2015

1

gram1449.dis

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-01449-CKD Document 15 Filed 11/25/15 Page 3 of 3