Palomino v. Fresno County Superior Courthouse et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Failure to State a Claim Under Section 1983, Without Prejudice to Filing a Habeas Corpus Petition signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/22/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JON ISAAC PALOMINO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

vs.
FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURTHOUSE, et al.,
Defendants.

16

1:16-cv-00316-GSA-PC
ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER
SECTION 1983, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TO FILING A HABEAS CORPUS
PETITION
ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

17
18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Jon Isaac Palomino (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this action.

22

On March 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

23

1983. (ECF No. 1.) On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in

24

this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance.

25

(ECF No. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern

26

District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until

27

such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

28

Plaintiff’s complaint is now before the Court for screening.
1

1

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

7

1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

8

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or

9

appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

10

A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing

11

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are

12

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

13

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell

14

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are

15

taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart

16

Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

17

To state a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

18

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S.

19

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as

20

true, legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting

21

this plausibility standard. Id.

22

III.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

23

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville

24

California, in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

25

(CDCR). At the time Plaintiff filed this complaint, he was incarcerated at Wasco State Prison

26

(WSP) in Wasco, California.

27

Courthouse, Fresno County Jail, and Wasco State Prison. Plaintiff’s allegations follow, in their

28

entirety.

Plaintiff names as defendants the Fresno County Superior

2

“Basically I got sentenced in 2012 or 2013 for violation of P.C.
273 in Visaila (sic) County, got sentenced to a year county time
plus fines which I was paying. I did that time. I was paying then
or now rather, on November 17, 2015, got resentenced to another
year and 90 days for same exact crime same exact case. I was
sent here to state prison!! I’ve sat here to rot since . . . Isn’t that
called double jeopardy?? Minus Alex Trebek! Isn’t this false
imprisonment?”

1
2
3
4
5
6

(Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 3.)
Plaintiff requests $200.00 and “to be free today with no probation or parole.” (ECF No.

7
8

1 at 3.)

9

IV.

PLAINTIFF’S HABEAS CLAIMS

10

When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a

11

constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is

12

a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973).

13

“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter the

14

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

15

conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) - if success in that action would

16

necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson,

17

544 U.S. 74, 81-2, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 1248 (2005). Moreover, where a § 1983 action seeking

18

damages alleges constitutional violations that would necessarily imply the invalidity of the

19

conviction or sentence, the prisoner must establish that the underlying sentence or conviction

20

has been invalidated on appeal, by a habeas petition, or through some similar proceeding. See

21

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-87 (1994). The Supreme Court later clarified that

22

Heck’s principle (also known as the “favorable termination” rule) applies regardless of the

23

form of remedy sought, if the § 1983 action implicates the validity of an underlying conviction

24

or a prison disciplinary sanction. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48 (1997);

25

Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (concluding that § 1983 claims

26

similar to those in Heck are not cognizable); see also Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 754-

27

55 (2004) (per curiam).

28

///
3

1

In the instant case, Plaintiff is incarcerated in state prison and challenges his sentence as

2

double jeopardy and his custody as false imprisonment. These allegations are insufficient to

3

state a § 1983 claim against any of the defendants. Because success on Plaintiff’s claim would

4

entitle him to a release from prison, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.

5

Amendment is futile in this instance because the deficiencies identified herein cannot be

6

cured by amendment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000); Schmier v.

7

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing

8

“[f]utility of amendment” as a proper basis for dismissal without leave to amend); see also

9

Trimble, 49 F.3d at 586 (a civil rights complaint seeking habeas relief should be dismissed

10

without prejudice to filing as a petition for writ of habeas corpus).

11

Accordingly, this case shall be dismissed for failure to state a § 1983 claim, without

12

prejudice to filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

13

V.

CONCLUSION

14

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state any cognizable claims upon

15

which relief may be granted under § 1983, and the deficiencies outlined above are not capable

16

of being cured by amendment.

17

Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1.

19
20

This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted under § 1983, without prejudice to filing a habeas corpus petition; and

2.

The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 22, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
4