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)

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