Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-06000/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-06000-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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

 Richardson has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Docket No. 4.

2

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Case No. C 15-6000 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PAUL RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 15-6000 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Paul Richardson, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 For the reasons stated below, the court dismisses the complaint

for failure to state a claim for relief.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.2

 In its

review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous,

Case 5:15-cv-06000-PSG Document 9 Filed 03/16/16 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

3

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

4

 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

5

 See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

6 Plata v. Brown, No. C01-1351 TEH (N.D. Cal.), Docket No. 2823 at 2.

7

 See Docket No. 1 at 2; Docket No. 1-1 at 2, 4; Docket No. 1-2 at 2.

8

 See Docket No. 1-2 at 18.

Case No. C 15-6000 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

2

malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief.3

 Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally

construed.4 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.5

B. Richardson’s Claim

On November 14, 2014, a three-judge court in Coleman v. Brown, No. 90-cv-520-KJM

DAD (PC) (E.D. Cal.), and Plata v. Brown, No. C01-1351 TEH (N.D. Cal.), issued an order

directing the State to “implement new parole procedures for non-violent second-strikers by

January 1, 2015,” by creating “a new parole determination process through which non-violent

second-strikers will be eligible for parole consideration by the Board of Parole Hearings once

they have served 50% of their sentence.”6 As a non-violent second striker who had served at

least 50% of his sentence, Richardson was eligible for parole consideration under this

Coleman/Plata order. On September 10, 2015, the Board of Parole Hearings considered and

denied Richardson parole.7

 

Richardson’s federal complaint asks this court to compel the Board of Parole Hearings to

reassess its denial of Richardson’s eligibility for parole, and grant him early release.8

 However,

Richardson’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. First, Richardson does not

Case 5:15-cv-06000-PSG Document 9 Filed 03/16/16 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

9

 See West, 487 U.S. at 48.

10 See Anyanwutaku v. Moore, 151 F.3d 1053, 1055-56 (D.C. Cir. 1998). 

11 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489

(1973)); see Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011).

Case No. C 15-6000 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

3

assert that the denial of parole violated any constitutional right.9 Second, because Richardson is

seeking immediate release, rather than an earlier eligibility review or parole hearing,

Richardson’s claim must be brought in habeas rather than in civil rights.10 “[H]abeas corpus is

the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement

and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal

terms of § 1983.”11

II. CONCLUSION

This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: PAUL S. GREWAL 

United States Magistrate Judge

3/16/2016

Case 5:15-cv-06000-PSG Document 9 Filed 03/16/16 Page 3 of 3