Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190722_0010134.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-10-16 16:51:34
Document Index: 75384693

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 2254', '§1983', '§2254', '§2254', '§ 2254']

FindACase™ | Sconce v. State
Sconce v. State
DAVID SCONCE, Plaintiff,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 4, 2019, the court screened plaintiff's complaint as the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint.
As plaintiff already knows, 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).
As in his original complaint, plaintiff challenges the fact that he is still in custody and he seeks injunctive relief and damages. As plaintiff was informed previously:
When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks is the determination of his entitlement to an earlier or immediate release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus which plaintiff would seek under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Also, to the extent plaintiff seeks damages, plaintiff is informed he cannot proceed on a §1983 claim for damages if the claim implies the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).
As with his original complaint, plaintiff fails to sate a claim upon which relief can be granted in his amended complaint. Therefore, the amended complaint must be dismissed and granting leave to amend a second time appears futile. Plaintiff might consider initiating an action under 28 U.S.C. §2254 for a writ of habeas corpus and the court will direct the Clerk of the Court to send plaintiff the court's form-application for a writ of habeas corpus by California inmates. But, plaintiff is advised that before he can bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254, he must exhaust state court remedies with respect to all claims raised, as exhaustion is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied by providing the California Supreme Court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971).
Finally, in his amended complaint, plaintiff again seeks the appointment of counsel. For reasons stated in the court's January 10, 2019 order and in light of the fact that the court is recommending dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint, the request for appointment of counsel will be denied.
1. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied;
2. The Clerk of the Court shall assign a district court judge to this case; and
3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff the court's form-application for a writ of habeas corpus by ...