Hamilton v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 2/21/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

EUGENE LAMAR HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,

8
vs.

9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

J. RODRIGUEZ, et. al.,
Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 12-4697 PJH (PR)

/
12
Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights
13
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to
14
amend and plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.
15
DISCUSSION
16
A.

Standard of Review

17
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
18
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
19
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
20
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
21
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
22
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
23
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
24
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
25
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;
26
the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
27
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations
28
omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

1

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

2

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

3

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

4

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

5

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

6

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

7

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

8

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

9

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

1937, 1950 (2009).

12

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

13

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

14

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

15

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

16

B.

17

Legal Claims
Plaintiff names approximately twenty defendants and states that they planted inmate

18

manufactured weapons in plaintiff’s wheelchair and then conspired to have plaintiff found

19

guilty at a disciplinary hearing. As a result of the guilty finding, plaintiff states he was

20

assessed a twelve month loss of time credits. Am. Compl. at 14, 16, 18. Plaintiff seeks

21

monetary damages and expungement of the disciplinary finding from his record. Plaintiff

22

was previously informed that in an amended complaint he must demonstrate that the

23

disciplinary finding has been reversed or expunged to proceed with this action. Plaintiff has

24

failed to address the reversal or expungement of the loss of credits.

25

Therefore, this claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck

26

the United States Supreme Court held that in order to recover damages for an allegedly

27

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose

28

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff must prove that the
2

1

conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,

2

declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into

3

question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 486-487. A claim

4

for damages arising from a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not

5

cognizable under section 1983. Id. Heck has been extended to prison disciplinary

6

hearings where time credits were affected. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997)

7

When a state prisoner seeks damages in a section 1983 suit, the district court must

his continued confinement; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff

10

can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. at 487.

11
For the Northern District of California

consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of

9

United States District Court

8

It does not appear this disciplinary finding has been invalidated, so this claim must

12

be dismissed. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (claims

13

barred by Heck may be dismissed sua sponte without prejudice).

14

CONCLUSION

15

For the reasons set forth above, the complaint is DISMISSED and this case is

16

CLOSED. Plaintiff may re-file this case if the underlying disciplinary finding is reversed,

17

expunged or invalidated.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 21, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

20
21

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.12\Hamilton4697.dsm.wpd

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3