Bravo v. Brown et al

Filing 15

ORDER ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DIRECTING COURT'S FINANCIAL OFFICE TO REFUND FILING FEE TO PLAINTIFF;TERMINATING ALL PENDING MOTIONS.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/10/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2011)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 No. C 11-01900 CW (PR) VICTOR J. BRAVO, 4 ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DIRECTING COURT'S FINANCIAL OFFICE TO REFUND FILING FEE TO PLAINTIFF; TERMINATING ALL PENDING MOTIONS Plaintiff, 5 v. 6 7 JERRY BROWN, Governor, C. LUSCH, Hospital Director, 8 Defendants. / 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas 11 Valley State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights action 12 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 13 Plaintiff’s complaint is now before the Court for review pursuant 14 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. BACKGROUND 15 16 He has paid the $350.00 filing fee. In his complaint and other papers filed in the instant matter, 17 Plaintiff alleges that he is unlawfully confined in state prison. 18 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that following the expiration of 19 his prison sentence in February 2009, the State of California has 20 refused to release him, and he currently is being held against his 21 will in the prison hospital at Salinas Valley State Prison. 22 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of immediate release 23 from prison. DISCUSSION 24 25 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any 26 case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity 27 or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 § 1915A(a). 28 U.S.C. In its review, the court must identify any cognizable 1 claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail 2 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary 3 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. 4 § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 5 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 6 1988). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 7 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 8 allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the 9 Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting 11 under the color of state law. 12 (1988). 13 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim for relief under 14 § 1983. 15 state officials to release him from prison is not cognizable in a 16 civil rights action because the request is premised upon a 17 challenge to the fact or duration of Plaintiff’s confinement. 18 "'Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints 19 related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 20 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. 21 Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration 23 are the province of habeas corpus.'" 24 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 25 (2004)). 26 to “immediate or speedier release” from confinement, such a claim 27 may be asserted only in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 See Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011)(internal Specifically, Plaintiff’s request that the Court compel Challenges to the Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. Thus, to the extent a prisoner maintains he is entitled 2 1 citation and quotation omitted). 2 Here, Plaintiff has filed a civil rights complaint but he 3 seeks relief that can be granted only by way of habeas corpus. 4 civil rights complaint seeking habeas relief should be dismissed 5 without prejudice to bringing it as a petition for writ of habeas 6 corpus. 7 Cir. 1995). 8 without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing a federal habeas petition 9 challenging the validity of his confinement once he has exhausted See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Accordingly, the instant action is hereby DISMISSED 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California A state remedies as to all claims he seeks to raise in federal 11 court.1 12 Because the Court has determined that the instant complaint 13 cannot proceed as a civil rights action but, instead, must be 14 dismissed because Plaintiff seeks habeas corpus relief, the court's 15 Financial Office is hereby DIRECTED to refund to Plaintiff the 16 $350.00 filing fee paid by Plaintiff in this matter. 17 18 19 The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment, close the file, and terminate any pending motions. IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: 6/10/2011 21 CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Individuals in state custody who wish to challenge in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c)); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). 3

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?