Brown v. North Kern State Prison et al

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 03/12/14 ordering plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN L. BROWN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-2425 CKD P v. ORDER NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented to have all proceedings in this action before a 19 United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). By order filed February 25, 2014, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to file an 20 21 amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 22 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 fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 In his amended complaint, plaintiff asserts various corrections officials at multiple prisons 2 miscalculated the amount of sentence credit plaintiff has earned while in prison. He seeks 3 monetary relief and injunctive relief which would result in more sentence credit. 4 5 Plaintiff presented essentially the same complaint in 1:12-cv-1707 DLB. In response to his complaint, plaintiff was informed as follows: “[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.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 8182 (2005). This principle, known as the favorable termination rule, see Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-87 (1994), is applicable in this action. Plaintiff must first pursue a remedy with a habeas petition prior to filing a § 1983 action. Because Plaintiff’s request for relief, if successful, would result in Plaintiff’s duration of confinement being reduced, Plaintiff does not state a cognizable § 1983 claim. Plaintiff’s claim fails a matter of law. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 The complaint filed in 1:12-cv-1707 DLB was dismissed on May 13, 2013. The amended 14 complaint filed in this action, essentially an improper second attempt to present claims which 15 cannot be presented in a § 1983 action, will also be dismissed.1 16 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed; and 18 2. This case is closed. 19 Dated: March 12, 2014 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 brow2425.dis 1 The court notes that plaintiff has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 where he presents essentially the same claims he presents here. See 2:13-cv-1406 TLN CKD P 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?