Jones v. Mata

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/07/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Judgment, # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

13
14

No. C-11-5791 TEH (PR)

MONROE JONES,

FERNANDO MATA,
(Doc. #2)

Defendant.

15

/

16
17
18

Plaintiff Monroe Jones, a prisoner at San Quentin State

19

Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

20

alleging that Defendant Fernando Mata improperly charged him with

21

parole violations, revoked his parole and extended his parole

22

release date.

23

in the form of his immediate release from prison.

24

Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

25

For the reasons stated below, the court DISMISSES the instant

26

complaint and DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

27

pauperis.

28

//

Plaintiff seeks damages as well as injunctive relief
Doc. #1.
Doc. #2.

I

1

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of

2
3

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or

4

officer or employee of a governmental entity.

5

The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,

6

or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous,

7

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

8

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

9

from such relief.”

Id. § 1915A(b).

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

Pleadings filed by pro se

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

litigants, however, must be liberally construed.

Hebbe v. Pliler,

11

627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

12

Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must

13
14

allege two essential elements:

(1) that a right secured by the

15

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

16

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

17

color of state law.

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

18
19

II

20

The gravamen of Plaintiff’s complaint is that Defendant

21

illegally returned him to prison by improperly charging him with

22

parole violations, revoking his parole and extending his release

23

date.

24

against Defendant must be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under the

25

rationale of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

26

City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995).

27
28

See Doc. #1.

As set forth below, Plaintiff’s civil suit

See Trimble v.

Generally, Heck bars claims challenging the validity of an
2

See Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d

1

arrest, prosecution or conviction.

2

697, 703 (9th Cir. 2006).

3

§ 1983 action for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

4

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness

5

would render a conviction or sentence invalid unless the conviction

6

or sentence first has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by

7

executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to

8

make such determination, or called into question by a federal

9

court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

Specifically, Heck bars a 42 U.S.C.

Heck, 512 U.S. at

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

486–87.

11

confinement resulting from a parole revocation hearing, as is the

12

case here, until the parole board’s decision has been reversed,

13

expunged, set aside or called into question.

14

Pardons and Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995); Sheldon

15

v. Hundley, 83 F.3d 231, 233 (8th Cir. 1996) (Heck bars claim of

16

improper deprivation of time credits because such claim necessarily

17

calls into question the lawfulness of the plaintiff’s continuing

18

confinement, i.e., it implicates the duration of the plaintiff’s

19

sentence).

20

alleged improper actions by Defendant that led to the revocation of

21

Plaintiff’s parole if such a claim would implicate the validity of

22

the parole revocation decision.

23

Heck also bars a challenge to the validity of the

See Littles v. Bd. of

Heck therefore would bar any damages claim for the

Because Plaintiff has not shown that the decision to

24

revoke his parole has been reversed, expunged, set aside or called

25

into question, his civil suit against Defendant is not cognizable

26

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

27

Plaintiff must have his revocation of parole and resulting

28

See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.

3

In other words,

1

confinement invalidated before he can proceed with a claim for

2

damages for the wrongful actions he claims caused his illegal

3

confinement.
If plaintiff wishes to challenge his parole revocation and

4
5

resulting confinement in this court, he must do so by way of a

6

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under the habeas sections of

7

Title 28 of the United States Code.

8

U.S. 740, 747 (1998); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500

9

(1973).

See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523

Plaintiff is advised that under those sections, he must

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

first exhaust available state judicial remedies.

11

See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(b) & (c).

12
III

13
14

For the foregoing reasons, the action is DISMISSED WITHOUT

15

PREJUDICE and Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.

16

#2) is DENIED as moot.

17

motions as moot, enter judgment in accordance with this order and

18

close the file.

The Clerk shall terminate all pending

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

DATED

12/07/2011

THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.11\Jones-11-5791-heck dismissal-parole violation.wpd

4