Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00134/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00134-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billy D. Anderson
Plaintiff
High Desert State Prison
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 10-0134 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

* E-Filed 4/12/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

BILLY D. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, 

Defendant. /

No. C 10-0134 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by pro se

plaintiff Billy D. Anderson. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff contends that there was no evidence to support his conviction for receiving

stolen property. Plaintiff also contends that his sentence should have been sixteen months or

two or three years, rather than the 137 years he received. 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

Case 3:10-cv-00134-RS Document 10 Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 10-0134 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be

drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th

Cir. 1994). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color

of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

Because plaintiff challenges the fact and length of his incarceration, his success in this

action could affect the length of his confinement and thus may only be raised in a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998) (any claim by a 

prisoner attacking the validity or duration of his confinement must be brought in a habeas

petition). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because 

his claim may only be raised in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Within 30 days of the

date of this order, plaintiff may file a federal habeas petition in which alleges his

constitutional claims. It appears that plaintiff received the conviction and sentence he is

challenging in the San Luis Obispo Superior Court. If this is true, plaintiff must file his

federal habeas petition in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where

Case 3:10-cv-00134-RS Document 10 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 10-0134 RS (PR)

3 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

venue is proper. 

Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 4 & 7) are GRANTED,

good cause appearing therefor. 

The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff a blank § 2254 habeas petition form.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 4 & 7. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendant, terminate all pending motions,

and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 8, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00134-RS Document 10 Filed 04/12/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 10-0134 RS (PR)

4 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

Billy D. Anderson 

G57946 

High Desert State Prison 

P.O. Box 3030 

B1-113 

Susanville, CA 96127-3030 

DATED: 04/12/2010 

 

 

s/ Chambers Staff 

Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

* Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who

have not registered with the Court's electronic filing system.

Case 3:10-cv-00134-RS Document 10 Filed 04/12/10 Page 4 of 4