Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05866/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05866-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Johnson
Plaintiff
Gail Lewis
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

ANDRE JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

GAIL LEWIS, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 03-5866 AWI DLB P 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Pending before the Court is the complaint, filed June 24, 2003. 

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); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend

may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

Case 1:03-cv-05866-LJO-DLB Document 6 Filed 05/03/06 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

In the instant case, plaintiff brings action against Warden Gail Lewis of Pleasant Valley State

Prison. Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully convicted of the crime for which he is incarcerated. 

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). Moreover, when seeking damages for an allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or

sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state

tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance

of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). 

“A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so

invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488. Because plaintiff’s conviction has not been

overturned, this civil rights action must be dismissed. Because this defect is not curable, the Court

does not deem it appropriate to grant leave to amend.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED, without

prejudice, for failure to state a section 1983 claim.

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, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations." The parties are 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: May 2, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05866-LJO-DLB Document 6 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2