Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01112/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01112-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES D. VILLACRES, No. 2:13-cv-1112-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, et al.

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1).

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

1

Case 2:13-cv-01112-LKK-CMK Document 15 Filed 12/31/13 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

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. 

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

In his complaint, plaintiff claims he was egregiously denied a parole date by the

defendants, in violation of his due process rights. He states that there is no evidence that

provides a viable reason to deny him parole. The relief he is requesting is an immediate parole

release date as well as damages.

II. DISCUSSION

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). Thus, 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, or the result of a prison disciplinary hearing resulting in

imposition of a sanction affecting the overall length of confinement, 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 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

483-84 (1994) (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations were akin to

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

2

Case 2:13-cv-01112-LKK-CMK Document 15 Filed 12/31/13 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

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

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

attempt to challenge substantive result in parole hearing); cf. 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); cf. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005)

(concluding that § 1983 action seeking changes in procedures for determining when an inmate is

eligible for parole consideration not barred because changed procedures would hasten future

parole consideration and not affect any earlier parole determination under the prior procedures).

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

convert the complaint into a habeas petition. See id.; 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 is challenging the Board of Parole Hearing’s decision to deny him a

parole date. What he seeks is an immediate parole release date. He is thus challenging a specific

parole determination, which is not cognizable in a § 1983 action. His sole remedy lies in a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

III. CONCLUSION

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 the complaint be

dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim.

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 14 days

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

3

Case 2:13-cv-01112-LKK-CMK Document 15 Filed 12/31/13 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

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 30, 2013

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:13-cv-01112-LKK-CMK Document 15 Filed 12/31/13 Page 4 of 4