Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02867/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02867-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Trieveon Domnick Chretien
Plaintiff
E. Valenzuela
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TRIEVEON DOMNICK CHRETIEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

E. VALENZUELA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-2867-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil action.1 He claims that 

his prison sentence for a non-violent crime must be recalculated in light of Proposition 47 and 

asks that he be resentenced. As explained below, this action must be dismissed without prejudice 

to plaintiff’s pursuit of an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 1

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

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See E.D. Cal. Local 

Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

Case 2:14-cv-02867-EFB Document 5 Filed 04/28/15 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 

27 

28 

2

As a general rule, a challenge in federal court to the fact of conviction or the length of 

confinement must be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). Where success in a section 1983 action would 

implicitly question the validity of confinement or its duration, the plaintiff must first show that 

the underlying conviction was reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared 

invalid by a state tribunal, or questioned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751 (2004). 

Plaintiff’s success in this action would necessarily implicate the duration of his 

confinement because he is claiming his sentence should be recalculated. Accordingly, a writ of 

habeas corpus is plaintiff’s sole remedy in federal court, which he may pursue only after 

exhausting all of his constitutional claims in state court. Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint must be 

dismissed without leave to amend. See Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1105 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint 

without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 

complaint could not be cured by amendment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Doe v. United 

States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if 

no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be 

cured by the allegation of other facts.”). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed without 

prejudice to plaintiff’s proper pursuit of habeas corpus relief in a new action and the Clerk is 

directed to close the case. 

DATED: April 28, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02867-EFB Document 5 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 2