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
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?