Rickey Trent Smith v. District Attorney, Merced County et al

Filing 9

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/28/15. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Thirty Day Objection Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICKEY TRENT SMITH,

12

Plaintiff,

13

Case No. 1:15-cv-00759-LJO-DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

v.
THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

14

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Rickey Trent Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in

17
18

this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 20, 2015, and it was

19

transferred to this Court on May 14, 2015.

20

I.

SCREENING STANDARD

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

25

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

26

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

27

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or

28
1

1

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

4

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

5

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

6

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

7

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

8

‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual

9

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

10

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other

11

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092

12

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v.

13

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

14

omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior

15

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d

16

1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009);

17

Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim

18

for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

19

The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

20

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

21

II.

22

Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or

ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT
Plaintiff challenges a September 19, 2014, sentence imposed in the Merced County Superior

23

Court. Plaintiff argues that his sentence (1) constitutes double jeopardy; and (2) is incorrect under

24

applicable laws. He requests monetary damages as relief.

25

III.

DISCUSSION

26

Often referred to as the Heck bar, the favorable termination rule bars any civil rights claim

27

which, if successful, would demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration. Such claims

28

may be asserted only in a habeas corpus petition. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489, 114 S.Ct.
2

1

2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (until and unless favorable termination of the conviction or sentence

2

occurs, no cause of action under § 1983 exists); see also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646–48,

3

117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (holding that a claim for monetary and declaratory relief

4

challenging the validity of procedures used to deprive a prisoner of good-time credits is not

5

cognizable under § 1983).

6

Here, Plaintiff’s claim involves the validity of his sentence. Such a claim is barred by Heck,

7

and he must pursue such claims by filing a habeas corpus petition. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d

8

850, 856 (9th Cir.2003) (the application of Heck “turns solely on whether a successful § 1983 action

9

would necessarily render invalid a conviction, sentence, or administrative sanction that affected the

10

length of the prisoner’s confinement”).
Plaintiff’s complaint therefore fails to state a claim under section 1983 and should be

11
12

dismissed.

13

IV.

14

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for failure to state a

15

claim under section 1983. The Court also RECOMMENDS that the Clerk of Court send Plaintiff a

16

petition for writ of habeas corpus. He may file his habeas petition in a new, separate action.

17

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

18

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

19

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

20

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

21

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within

22

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

23

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

May 28, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
3