LaFlamme v. Evans
Filing
13
ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ***Civil Case Terminated.Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 5/25/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2012)
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7
DON LAFLAMME,
Plaintiff,
8
EVANS, Warden,
Defendant.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
9
10
No. C 12-0874 PJH (PR)
/
12
13
This is a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by a state prisoner
14
housed at Salinas Valley State Prison. It was transferred here from the Eastern District of
15
California. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate
16
order.
17
18
19
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
20
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
21
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
22
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
23
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id.
24
at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica
25
Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
26
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
27
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;
28
the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual
3
allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'
4
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
5
cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
6
above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
7
(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
8
plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained
9
the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the
10
framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are
11
For the Northern District of California
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations
2
United States District Court
1
well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
12
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
13
679 (2009).
14
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
15
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
16
violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the
17
color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
18
B.
Legal Claims
19
Plaintiff contends that his sentence has been “illegally increased” as a result of loss
20
of good time for disciplinary violations. Along with damages and court costs, he asks that
21
he be released from prison and that his sentence been deemed “expired including parole.”
22
Habeas is the "exclusive remedy" for the prisoner who seeks "‘immediate or
23
speedier release'" from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011)
24
(quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); see Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S.
25
740, 747 (1998); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). To the extent plaintiff
26
seeks release, his claims must be brought in a habeas case.
27
28
As to plaintiff’s request for damages, the United States Supreme Court has held that
to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for
2
1
other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence
2
invalid, a section 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been
3
reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
4
authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance
5
of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994). A claim for
6
damages arising from a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not
7
cognizable under section 1983. Id.; see also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645 (1997)
8
(claim arising from loss of good credits in disciplinary proceeding subject to Heck if success
9
in 1983 case would result in shortened sentence).
When a state prisoner seeks damages in a section 1983 suit, the district court must
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of
12
his continued confinement or result in the shortening of it; if it would, the complaint must be
13
dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already
14
been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.
15
It is clear from the complaint that the conviction has not been invalidated, so the
16
claims for damages also must be dismissed. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d
17
583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (claims barred by Heck may be dismissed sua sponte without
18
prejudice).
19
20
21
22
23
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s claims cannot be raised in a section 1983 case. This action therefore is
DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 25, 2012.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.12\LaFlamme0874.dsm.wpd
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?