Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01105/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01105-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Defendant
Dorian Davis
Plaintiff
Wali Al-Taqi Davis
Plaintiff
Pasadena Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles
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

DORIAN DAVIS aka )

WALI AL-TAQI DAVIS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

PASADENA SUPERIOR COURT, et al., )

 )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:08-cv-01105-LJO-SMS-PC 

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

(30) DAYS

Plaintiff, Dorian Davis aka Wali Al-Taqi Davis (“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 July 31, 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

Case 1:08-cv-01105-LJO -SMS Document 6 Filed 09/17/08 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

27

28 2

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

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 Kern Valley State Prison in Delano,

California and is serving a sentence imposed by the Pasadena Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

California. The complaint was filed on July 31, 2008 and names as defendants the Pasadena Superior

Court for the County of Los Angeles and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Plaintiff alleges that on December 1, 1997, he was erroneously sentenced to 40 years and 8

months, instead of 19 years and 4 months, at the Pasadena Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges the court

failed to comply with Section 669 of the California Penal Code, the U.S. Constitution, and the state

Constitution, in deciding the sentence. Between May 10, 2005 and April 1, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion

to correct his sentence, a petition for writ of mandate, a petition for writ of coram nobis, and four

petitions for writ of habeas corpus, all which were denied. On April 18, 2008, the Pasadena Superior

Court issued a new minute order which incorporated a new judgment to correct plaintiff’s sentence.

However, plaintiff alleges that the corrected sentence is incorrect due to the improper usage of “nunc

pro tunc” and failure to comply with court rules and Penal Code Section 669.

Plaintiff requests as relief a declaratory judgment “setting out the duties and procedures of the

parties, express[ing] [the] opinion of the court about the ‘judicial error’ and [its] relation [] to ‘nunc pro

tunc’ or [] to the 5th Amendment Double Jeopardy clause.” Plaintiff also requests a court order directing

Case 1:08-cv-01105-LJO -SMS Document 6 Filed 09/17/08 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

27

28 3

the Pasadena Superior Court to apply the proper procedures pursuant to Penal Code Section 669. 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 him to 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 challenges the legality of his sentence. He seeks as relief a declaratory

judgment setting out the duties of the parties, and a court order directing the Superior Court to apply

proper sentencing procedures. Success in this action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of

plaintiff’s 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. 

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

Case 1:08-cv-01105-LJO -SMS Document 6 Filed 09/17/08 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

27

28 4

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-01105-LJO -SMS Document 6 Filed 09/17/08 Page 4 of 4