Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01353/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01353-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rafael Lopez
Plaintiff
People of the State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

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

RAFAEL LOPEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

1:08-cv-01353-OWW-SMS-PC 

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

(30) DAYS

Plaintiff, Rafael Lopez (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint on September 11, 2008. (Doc. 1.)

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 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). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

Case 1:08-cv-01353-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 09/17/08 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 2

claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984),

citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners

Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees,

425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve

all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

II. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is a state prisoner presently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in Susanville,

California. The complaint was filed on September 11, 2008 and names one defendant, the People of

the State of California. Plaintiff requests as relief the reversal of his criminal case and a correction to

his sentence based on the promise he was given by the prosecutor when he entered a guilty plea at the

Fresno County Superior Court. (Case 313768-4.)

III. HABEAS CORPUS

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

challenge which could entitle himto an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.

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). “[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no

matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state

conduct leading to conviction orinternal prison proceedings) - if success in that action would necessarily

demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-2, 125

S.Ct. 1242, 1248 (2005). 

In the complaint, plaintiff clearly challenges his conviction and sentence. Plaintiff claims he

agreed to a plea bargain for a reduced sentence but was given a different sentence. He seeks as relief

the reversal of his case and a correction to his sentence. Success in this action would necessarily

demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration. Therefore, plaintiff’s sole federal remedy is

a writ of habeas corpus, and the court should dismiss the claim without prejudice. 

///

Case 1:08-cv-01353-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 09/17/08 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 3

IV. CONCLUSION

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a claim upon which relief may be

granted under section 1983. The court also finds that the deficiencies in the complaint are not capable

of being cured by amendment, and therefore leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, based on the

foregoing analysis, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section

1983. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with

the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01353-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 09/17/08 Page 3 of 3