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)

Download PDF
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

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?