Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01038/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01038-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY J. BIGGS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1038 LKK GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA STATE, 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 has paid the filing fee.

In this action, petitioner alleges that the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) has not

conducted timely suitability hearings. For example, petitioner alleges that on April 16, 2004, the

BPT found him unsuitable and ordered another suitability hearing in one year. Petitioner alleges

that the BPT has yet to schedule his next suitability hearing which should have occurred in April

2005.

Petitioner’s claim does not necessarily imply the invalidity of his continuing

confinement. Cf. Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997). If petitioner prevails

on this claim, “it will in no way guarantee parole or necessarily shorten [his] prison sentence []

by a single day” because the parole board will still have authority to deny parole “on the basis of

Case 2:05-cv-01038-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 06/16/05 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

2

any grounds presently available to it in evaluating such a request.” Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d

818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Bogovich v. Sandoval, 189 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, this

claim should be brought in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Petitioner also alleges that the delay in his receipt of parole hearings violates his

plea agreement. Petitioner argues that in 1987 he was sentenced with the understanding that he

would be out of prison in 12 1⁄2 years. Petitioner argues that the delays in his receipt of parole

hearings extends his incarceration in violation of his plea agreement. In CIV S-03-1439 FCD

GGH P petitioner is pursuing his claim alleging that his continued incarceration violates his

understanding of his plea agreement. The instant claim is encompassed by the allegations in CIV

S-03-1439 FCD GGH P. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed as duplicative of the claims raised

in CIV S-03-1439 FCD GGH P.

Petitioner also alleges that the state courts failed to correct the continued abuses

by the BPT in delaying parole hearings. This claim also does not implicate the validity of

petitioner’s continued confinement and should be raised in a civil rights action.

For the reasons discussed above, the court construes this action as a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The petition is dismissed with thirty days to file a civil

rights complaint. Petitioner has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and paid the $5

filing fee for a habeas corpus action. Once the court receives the complaint, it will grant

petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and apply the $5 already paid toward the filing

fee for the civil rights action ($250).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is construed as a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

the petition is dismissed with thirty days to file a civil rights complaint;

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01038-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 06/16/05 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

3

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the form for a civil rights

complaint.

DATED: 6/15/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

bigg1038.ame

 

Case 2:05-cv-01038-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 06/16/05 Page 3 of 3