Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00141/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00141-0/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

Although petitioner has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing 1

fee ($5.00) (28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a)), the court will not require it for screening this

application at this point.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZACKERY HUNT,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0141 MCE GGH P

vs.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner alleges that at a belated Valdivia 1

hearing on November 23, 2005, he received, for having violated parole, a sentence of ten months

at half time. Petition, p. 2. As petitioner had been incarcerated on the parole violation for six

months at that point, he was told by the hearing commissioner that he would probably be released

upon his return back to the prison. Id. Petitioner was later informed, on December 23, 2005,

by a records analyst that the half time had been transmuted to flat time because he had had a

violent commitment and was not eligible for half-time. Id., p. 3. Petitioner seeks a hearing or

Case 2:06-cv-00141-MCE -GGH Document 6 Filed 02/27/06 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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 2

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 3

limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year

period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion

of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations

is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is

pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

2

release from custody and money damages. 

To the extent that petitioner seeks release from custody, he must proceed by way

of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489, 93 S. Ct.

1827 [] (1973) (when a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks

is the determination of his entitlement to an earlier or immediate release, his sole federal remedy

is a writ of habeas corpus). 

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must

be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, 2

thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before

presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v.

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has

failed to exhaust state court remedies. The claims have not been presented to the California

Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to

petitioner. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.

3

On the other hand, petitioner also seeks money damages for claims that state a

colorable due process violation. In order to proceed on his claim for money damages, petitioner

must proceed as plaintiff in a civil rights action. Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 124 S. Ct.

Case 2:06-cv-00141-MCE -GGH Document 6 Filed 02/27/06 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

2117, 2122 (2004), citing Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749 , 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 []

(2004) (per curiam); Preiser, supra, at 498-499, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (constitutional claims challenging

the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement, whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive

relief, to be brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983). See also, Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74,

125 S. Ct. 1242 (2005) (prisoner may challenge the constitutionality of parole procedures,

seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 

If petitioner, as plaintiff, chooses to file a civil rights complaint, plaintiff must

demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint

must name each defendant and must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is

involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link

or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423

U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588

F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. 

Moreover, should petitioner elect to proceed as plaintiff in a civil rights action, he

must file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the required filing fee of $250.00. See 28 U.S.C.

Case 2:06-cv-00141-MCE -GGH Document 6 Filed 02/27/06 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

§§ 1914(a), 1915(a). Plaintiff will be provided the opportunity either to submit the appropriate

affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or to submit the appropriate filing

fee. He will also be provided the form for filing a civil rights action in this district. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s petition is dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies

without prejudice to petitioner, as plaintiff, filing a civil rights action within thirty days of the

filed date of this order. Failure to file a civil rights complaint will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed for petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies as to his

habeas petition and, alternatively, as plaintiff, for his failure to file a civil rights complaint. 

2. Petitioner, as plaintiff, shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this

order, an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by

the Clerk of Court, or the appropriate filing fee; failure to comply with this order will also result

in a recommendation of dismissal of this action; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a form for filing a civil

rights complaint by a prisoner in this district and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

By a Prisoner; and

4. Upon the filing of a civil rights complaint, the Clerk of the Court will be

directed to re-designate this action as one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

DATED: 2/24/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

hunt0141.ord

Case 2:06-cv-00141-MCE -GGH Document 6 Filed 02/27/06 Page 4 of 4