Blackmon v. Division of Adult Parole Operation Region 2 et al

Filing 30

ORDER RELATING CASES; DISMISSING CASE NO. C 12-1185 LB; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 7/9/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2012)

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
)
CORRECTIONS AND
)
REHABILITATION, DIVISION OF
)
ADULT PAROLE OPERATION,
)
REGION 2; J. LARSON; JAMES
)
SCAVER; RAY POLIAKOFF;
)
)
Defendant.
__________________________________ )
VALDEZ BLACKMON,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Nos. C 12-1185 LB
C 11-3948 JSW (PR)
ORDER RELATING CASES;
DISMISSING CASE NO. C 121185 LB; GRANTING LEAVE
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 2)

15
16

Plaintiff, an ex- parolee of the State of California, filed a pro se civil rights action

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case, No. C 12-1185 LB, was assigned to Magistrate

18

Judge Beeler, who referred it to the undersigned District Judge for a determination

19

whether it should relate to an earlier case filed by Plaintiff, No. C 11-3948 JSW (PR). In

20

both cases, Plaintiff makes the same allegations against the same defendants -- indeed the

21

complaints in the two cases are nearly identical. Accordingly, the Court determines that

22

they are related and Case No. C 12-1185 LB shall be reassigned to the undersigned

23

District Judge.

24

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s earlier case because Plaintiff did not state a

25

cognizable claim for relief. For the same reasons, the identical claims raised in the latter

26

case, No. C 12-1185 LB, are also not cognizable. The claims are also not cognizable for

27

second reason. Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ actions led to the revocation of his

28

parole, and he seeks money damages from them for his pain and suffering when he was

1

incarcerated after his parole was revoked. A plaintiff may not obtain money damages

2

based on allegedly wrongful incarceration resulting from a parole-revocation hearing if

3

he does not allege that the parole board's decision has been reversed, expunged, set aside

4

or called into question. See Littles v. Bd. of Pardons and Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123

5

(5th Cir. 1995); see also McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161

6

(5th Cir. 1995) (Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994), bars a Section 1983

7

action challenging revocation of supervised release). It is clear from the allegations in

8

the complaint that the decision to revoke Plaintiff’s parole was not reversed, expunged,

9

set aside or called into question.

10

For the foregoing reasons, the Case No. C 12-1185 LB is REASSIGNED to the

11

undersigned District Judge and DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for

12

relief. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in that case (Docket No. 2) is

13

GRANTED.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 9, 2012

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
VALDEZ BLACKMON,

Case Number: CV12-01185 LB
CV11-03948 JSW

6
Plaintiff,

7
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

8
CA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS et al,

9
Defendant.

10
11
12
13
14

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on July 9, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

15
16

18

Valdez Blackmon
P.O. Box 213
Palo Alto, CA 94025

19

Dated: July 9, 2012

17

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk