Source: http://nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150622_0001425.DNV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-07 14:27:35
Document Index: 617773209

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

| Gallimort v. Hanebeck
Gallimort v. Hanebeck
JOSE GALLIMORT, Plaintiff,v.PAROLE COMMISSIONER T. HANEBECK, et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada department of corrections ("NDOC"), has submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. [1] (ECF No. 1, 1-1, 3, 4). The court now screens plaintiff's civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In the complaint, plaintiff sues multiple defendants for events that took place while plaintiff was incarcerated at High Desert State Prison ("HDSP"). (ECF No. 1-1 at 1). Plaintiff sues defendants T. Hanebeck (parole commissioner), T. Bass (parole commissioner), Y. Morales (parole commissioner), T. Goodson (parole commissioner), M. Veith (parole commissioner), C. Bisbee (parole commissioner), D. Salling (parole commissioner), Tony Corda (parole commissioner), Susan Jackson (parole commissioner), Adam Endel (parole commissioner), Maurice Silva (parole commissioner), and Ed Gray Jr. (parole commissioner). (2-4). Plaintiff alleges two counts and seeks monetary damages and the grant of parole on all convicted counts. ( Id. at 14, 19).
The complaint alleges the following: Three different parole boards have denied plaintiff parole even though he has participated in programs and education. ( Id. at 6-8). These three boards violated plaintiff's Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights because they discriminated against him by granting other prisoners who participated in the same programs parole. ( Id. ). Additionally, the parole commissioners have stated that plaintiff was a violent person even though he has proven rehabilitation. ( Id. at 10). The commissioners used sexual assault on the victim but plaintiff asserts that he was only convicted of first degree kidnapping without proof of battery. ( Id. ). Plaintiff argues that the commissioners grant celebrity prisoners, such as O.J. Simpson, parole on their first try. ( Id. at 12). Plaintiff also argues that he had been transferred to the prison prior to his sentencing because the county jail had been full. ( Id. at 14).
The Supreme Court has held that a prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge "the fact or duration of his confinement, " but instead must seek federal habeas corpus relief or the appropriate state relief. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005). In Wilkinson, the Supreme Court held that "a state prisoner's § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)-no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner's suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)-if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration. Id. at 81-82.
The Ninth Circuit has held that "a challenge to the procedures used in the denial of parole necessarily implicates the validity of the denial of parole and, therefore, the prisoner's continuing confinement." Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997). "This is true whether that denial is alleged to be improper based upon procedural defects in the parole hearing or upon allegations that parole was improperly denied on the merits." Id. The Ninth Circuit has held that prisoners' claims that are based on the "deceit and bias" on the part of the decision makers and allege that their prolonged incarcerations are due to the purported bias of state officials imply the invalidity of the prisoners' confinement. McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2004).
In this case, plaintiff is attempting to invalidate his confinement by challenging the procedures and decisions the parole commissioners used to deny him parole. As such, the court dismisses this case in its entirety, with prejudice, as amendment would be futile.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3, 4) without having to prepay the full filing fee is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial installment fee. Nevertheless, the full filing fee shall still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. The movant herein is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of fees or costs or the giving of security therefor. This order granting in forma pauperis status shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada department of corrections shall pay to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits to the account of Jose Gallimort, #56977 (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The clerk shall send a copy of this order to the attention of Albert G. Peralta, Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Prisons, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, even if this action is dismissed, or is otherwise unsuccessful, the full filing fee shall still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, as amendment would be futile, for failure to state a claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this court certifies that any in forma pauperis appeal from this order would not be taken "in good faith" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall enter judgment accordingly.