Taylor v. Newton

Filing 8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge William H. Alsup on 7/24/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
RALPH A. TAYLOR,

12
13

No. C 13-2422 WHA (PR)

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.
B. NEWTON; N. HEGGSTROM;
Defendants.

14

/
15
16

INTRODUCTION

17

Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison

18

(“PBSP”), filed this case in state court. Because the complaint contained a federal claims for

19

the violation of plaintiff’s due process rights, defendants timely removed the case to federal

20

court. See 28 U.S.C. 1441, 1367. After a review of the complaint, it is dismissed without

21

prejudice.
ANALYSIS

22
23

A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

24

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

25

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

26

1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

27

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

28

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro

1

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

2

(9th Cir. 1990).

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

4

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

5

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

6

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).

7

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

8

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

9

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

12

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

13

at 1974.

14

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

15

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

16

that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

17

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

18

B.

19

LEGAL CLAIMS
Plaintiff claims that defendants violated his right to due process by “willfully and

20

intentionally” issuing an “unwarranted” disciplinary report against him and, based on such a

21

report, depriving him of good time credits and television for ninety days. If the discipline was

22

unwarranted because plaintiff was innocent of the charge, this does not raise a due process issue

23

because the Constitution demands due process, not error-free decision-making. See Ricker v.

24

Leapley, 25 F.3d 1406, 1410 (8th Cir. 1994); McCrae v. Hankins, 720 F.2d 863, 868 (5th Cir.

25

1983). The loss of television privileges also does not implicate a prisoner’s right to due process

26

because it is not a sufficiently severe hardship. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477-87

27

(1995). While the loss of time credits may implicate the right to due process, in federal court

28

such a claim may not be brought in a civil complaint, such as the one filed here, but rather must
2

1

be raised in a federal habeas corpus petition because a time credit claim affects the legality or

2

duration of a prisoner's custody and a determination of which may likely result in entitlement to

3

an earlier release. See Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997); Young v. Kenny,

4

907 F.2d 874, 876-78 (9th Cir. 1990); Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989).

5

Consequently, plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for

6

relief. The dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff raising his due process challenge to the

7

loss of time credits in a federal habeas corpus petition. Petitioner may also bring any

8

cognizable claims under state law in state court, but he is cautioned that if he includes any

9

claims for the violation of his federal constitutional rights or other federal law in his state court
complaint, defendants may remove the action to federal court, as they did here.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

CONCLUSION

12

This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

13

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
Dated: July
16

24

, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3