McGathon v. San Quentin Prison et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 2/4/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

JOHN REGINALD MCGATHON,

Case No.: C 14-0028 JSC (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15
16

OFFICER MATTOCKS, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

INTRODUCTION

19
20

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro, filed this pro se civil rights complaint

21

under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against officials at San Quentin State Prison. 1 His application to

22

proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, the

23

complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

24

STANDARD OF REVIEW

25
26

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28

27
28

1

Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 4).

1

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or

2

any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

3

upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

4

immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.

5

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

6
7
8
9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the
statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13
14

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . .
a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than
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

15

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

16

A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.”

17

Id. at 1974. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,

18

901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23
24
25

LEGAL CLAIMS
At San Quentin, officials found Plaintiff guilty of violating prison rules by committing

26

battery against another inmate. As a consequence, officials revoked 360 days of good time

27

credits, placed him in isolated housing for ten months, transferred him to higher security

28

housing, and removed him from his prison work assignment. Plaintiff alleges that a more

2

1

thorough investigation by prison officials would have shown that he was innocent. He seeks

2

monetary damages.

487 (1994), bars claims of unconstitutional disciplinary actions resulting in the deprivation of

5

time credits because such claims necessarily call into question the lawfulness of the plaintiff's

6

continuing confinement insofar as they implicate the duration of the plaintiff's sentence.

7

Sheldon v. Hundley, 83 F.3d 231, 233 (8th Cir. 1996); see Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641,

8

645 (1997) (holding that Heck bars claim for using wrong procedures in disciplinary hearing

9

that resulted in loss of time credits if “nature of the challenge to the procedures [is] such as

10

necessarily to imply the invalidity of the” disciplinary decision). Where a claim would, if

11
Northern District of California

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-

4

United States District Court

3

successful, “necessarily accelerate” the prisoner’s release, Heck applies. Ramirez v. Galaza,

12

334 F.3d 850, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff claims that he is innocent of the battery and

13

that the disciplinary findings are incorrect. If successful, this claim would necessarily

14

accelerate his release because it would invalidate the prison official’s disciplinary action,

15

including the revocation of 360 days of his good time credits. As a result, Heck bars his

16

claims for money damages based upon the allegedly unconstitutional disciplinary action until

17

such time as the discipline has been overturned or otherwise invalidated. Plaintiff is not

18

precluded from challenging the disciplinary action in federal court in a federal habeas petition.

19

See Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997) (time credit claim that affects

20

duration of prisoner’s custody, and a determination of which may likely result in entitlement

21

to earlier release, must be brought in habeas); Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011)

22

(habeas is “exclusive remedy” for prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier release’” from

23

confinement). Accordingly, the claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff

24

challenging the disciplinary action in a federal habeas petition after he has exhausted the claim

25

through the state courts, or to Plaintiff refiling his claims for damages in a new civil rights

26

action when the disciplinary action has been overturned or otherwise invalidated.

27

//

28

3

CONCLUSION

1

The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment and

2
3

close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated:

February 4, 2014

_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4