Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00711/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00711-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Belinda Allen-Hendrix
Defendant
Anthony Ceaser Lewis
Plaintiff

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY CEASER LEWIS,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

BELINDA ALLEN-HENDRIX, Case

Management Specialist, Salinas Valley

State Prison,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-0711 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint attacking the

correctness of the release date calculated by the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation. He also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

which 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:08-cv-00711-WHA Document 5 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

at 1986-87. 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff does not explain his constitutional argument, but it is clear that the factual basis

for his claim is his contention that defendant has set the wrong release date for him. He wants

ten thousand dollars damages and “to be release[d] out of custody to parole.” 

To the extent plaintiff asks to be released, that claim can be brought only in habeas. See

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). And his request for damages is barred by Heck

v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), as discussed below. 

The United States Supreme Court has held that to recover damages for an allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, 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. Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct.

Case 3:08-cv-00711-WHA Document 5 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 3
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

1

 A district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the

conditions of his confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See

Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). The opposite is not true, however: A

civil rights complaint seeking habeas relief should be dismissed without prejudice to

bringing it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d

583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995).

3

2364, 2372 (1994). "[A] § 1983 cause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional

conviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated." 

Id. at 2374 (footnote omitted). Any such claim may be dismissed sua sponte without prejudice. 

Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995).

Heck also bars constitutional claims which necessarily call into question the lawfulness

of the plaintiff's continuing confinement, i.e., it implicates the duration of the plaintiff's

sentence, as here. See Sheldon v. Hundley, 83 F.3d 231, 233 (8th Cir. 1996). When a state

prisoner’s section 1983 suit implicates the length of his or her incarceration, the complaint must

be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he has succeeded in getting the duration

of the sentence changed in another forum, for instance by succeeding with a state or federal

habeas petition. This plaintiff has not done, so he has failed to state a cognizable claim under

section 1983. The case must be dismissed.1

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the case is DISMISSED without prejudice to reasserting the

claims if a cause of action ever accrues.

Plaintiff may disregard the clerk's notice regarding his in forma pauperis application. 

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.08\LEWIS0712.DSM.wpd 

Case 3:08-cv-00711-WHA Document 5 Filed 02/12/08 Page 3 of 3