Jenkins v. Hill et al

Filing 9

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION Recommending Dismissal of Complaint for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim under Section 1983, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/13/14. Referred to Judge Ishii; 15-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LOUIS JENKINS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
RICK HILL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00737-AWI-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM UNDER SECTION
1983
[ECF No. 1]

Plaintiff Rick Hill is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on May 15, 2014.

20

I.

21

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

22

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

23

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

24

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

25

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks

26

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

27
28

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but
1

1

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,

2

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

3

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally

4

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County,

5

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).

6

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings

7

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now

8

higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive

9

screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow

10

the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal,

11

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer

12

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely

13

consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556

14

U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

15

II.

16

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff contends that his due process rights were violated based on the denial of an

17
18

evidentiary hearing in the state court to correct his sentence of 25 years to life. Plaintiff requests

19

access to evidence in the original finding of the state court to be made a matter of record for the

20

determination of unsuitability for an increased sentence. Plaintiff contends that there was no valid

21

filing of an information in the Merced County Superior Court and the imposed sentence is

22

unauthorized and void.
Plaintiff sought review by way of petition for writ of habeas corpus to the state superior court,

23
24

state appellate court, and California Supreme Court. Plaintiff alleges the failure to correct his

25

unlawful conviction and sentence has resulted in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

III.

2

DISCUSSION

3

Plaintiff’s challenge to his conviction and/or sentence is not cognizable in this action. A

4

plaintiff may not in a civil rights action challenge a conviction or seek release from confinement.

5

Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his

6

confinement and seeks speedier release. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

7

Further, in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, (1994), the Supreme Court held that to recover

8

damages for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence

9

invalid,” a section 1983 Plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence was reversed, expunged,

10

or otherwise invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. at 486-487. In section 1983 suits the Court

11

must “consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of

12

his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can

13

demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id. at 487. The Heck bar

14

preserves the rule that federal challenges, which, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity

15

of incarceration or its duration, must be brought by way of petition for writ of habeas corpus, after

16

exhausting appropriate avenues of relief. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750-751 (2004).

17

Accordingly, “a state prisoner’s [section] 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) – no matter

18

the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct

19

leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) – if success in that action would necessarily

20

demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82

21

(2005); see also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644-646 (1997) (holding that claims alleging

22

procedural defects and bias by a hearing officer at disciplinary hearing were not cognizable under

23

Heck, because they implied the invalidity of a credit forfeiture imposed at the hearing).

24

The fact that the state courts denied Plaintiff’s writ of habeas corpus petitions does not provide

25

a basis to seek relief by way of section 1983, because absent a showing the conviction and/or sentence

26

was invalidated, not present here, Plaintiff’s sole remedy to challenge such conviction and/or sentence

27

is by way of petition for writ of habeas corpus. Thus, the instant complaint must be dismissed,

28

without prejudice, and without leave to amend as amendment in this instance would be futile. See
3

1

Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (declining to convert civil rights

2

complaint barred by Heck into habeas petition; to do so might foreclose effective review of habeas

3

claims not asserted in civil rights action); see also McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091,

4

1099 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of civil rights complaint without leave to amend where

5

amendment would have been futile due to Heck bar).

6

IV.

7

RECOMMENDATION

8

Based on the foregoing,

9

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the instant complaint be dismissed, without prejudice,

10

and without leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim under section 1983. Should

11

Plaintiff wish to pursue his claims he must do so by way of petition for writ of habeas corpus.

12

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

13

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15)

14

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections

15

with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s Findings and

16

Recommendation.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

17

waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:

22

August 13, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
4