Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00034/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00034-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Corrections
Defendant
Arthur John Sowell
Plaintiff

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR JOHN SOWELL,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 0034 OWW WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

CALIF. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the September 7, 2006, first amended complaint. Plaintiff, an

inmate in custody at the Santa Clara County Jail, brings this action against the California

Department of Corrections. Plaintiff’s sole claim in this action is that his release date has been

improperly calculated, and he is entitled to earlier release. 

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).

Where the complaint states a habeas claim instead of a § 1983 claim, the court should

Case 1:06-cv-00034-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 2
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

dismiss the claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust, rather than converting it to a habeas

and addressing it on the merits. See Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 255 (9 Cir. 1997); th

Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9 Cir. 1995). th

In the August 1, 2006, order dismissing the original complaint, Plaintiff was specifically

advised that if he wished to challenge the validity of his underlying conviction, or seek any relief

that would entitle him to an earlier release, he must proceed by writ of habeas corpus. In the first

amended complaint, Plaintiff restates the claim set forth in the original complaint. Plaintiff adds

that he can not proceed without the assistance of counsel, and requests the court to appoint

counsel. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel was denied on April 24, 2006. The

August 1, 2006, order dismissing the original complaint clearly advised Plaintiff that he could

not challenge the basis of his conviction, or set forth any challenge that would affect the length

of his sentence or entitle him to early release, by way of a civil rights action. Plaintiff has not

cured the defects identified in the original complaint. This action should therefore be dismissed. 

See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of th

deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim).

In accordance with the above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing of an application for writ of habeas corpus.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a 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: November 7, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00034-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 2