Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00358/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00358-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAREN JEAN MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES MORA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00358-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE

GRANTED

(Doc. 1)

I. Screening Order

Plaintiff Daren Jean Miller (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on March

30, 2006. Plaintiff alleges that his parole was wrongfully revoked, in violation of the Due Process

Clause, and that both his preliminary hearing and final revocation hearing did not comport with due

process. Plaintiff is seeking money damages and injunctive relief, including an order requiring

defendants to dismiss the charge and recalculate his time assessment.

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).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00358-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 05/30/06 Page 1 of 2
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

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a constitutional

challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas

corpus. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 1245-48 (2005); Preiser v. Rodriguez,

411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090

(1991). Moreover, when seeking relief for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,

“a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been 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, 28

U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim . . . bearing that

relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under §

1983.” Id. at 488.

Plaintiff may not at this time bring a civil rights action arising out of his allegedly wrongful

parole revocation. Plaintiff’s sole remedy is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly,

this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted under section 1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00358-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 05/30/06 Page 2 of 2