Frederick v. Magarrell
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/7/2017 ORDERING Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED; and this case is closed. CASE CLOSED (Reader, L)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:16-cv-1558 CKD P
R. MAGARRELL, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to have all matters in this action before a United
States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) & ECF No. 3. On August 17, 2016, plaintiff’s
complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint.
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
In his amended complaint plaintiff alleges that at some point he filed a grievance against
Correctional Officer Magarrell for calling plaintiff a “snitch.” According to plaintiff, on
November 19, 2015, in retaliation for the grievance, plaintiff was pepper-sprayed by Correctional
Officer Magarrell under the pretense that plaintiff was fighting. Later that day, defendant
Correctional Officer Muhammed filed a report saying she was the one that pepper-sprayed
plaintiff in order to help cover up defendant Magarrell’s retaliatory act. Plaintiff lost 90 days of
good conduct sentence credit as a result of the report.
In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 647-48 (1997) the Supreme Court found that a
prisoner may not proceed on § 1983 claim if judgment in favor of the prisoner would imply the
invalidity of his sentence. Before plaintiff could proceed with any § 1983 claim against
defendant Muhammed arising out of her allegedly false report, plaintiff would first have to have
his 90 days lost sentence credit restored through an action for a writ of habeas corpus, see Preiser
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (when the relief sought by a state prisoner is earlier
release, the appropriate action is a habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254) or some other action
arising under California law.
For these reasons, plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed. The court will not
grant leave to amend a second time as that appears futile.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed; and
2. This case is closed
Dated: February 7, 2017
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?