Slaughter v. Cate et al
Filing
23
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
TERRY L. SLAUGHTER,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 12-3872 LHK (PR)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS
Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant
16
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials. Plaintiff claims that defendants violated his right to
17
due process by failing to keep accurate information in his prison file. Defendants have moved to
18
dismiss the complaint for: being untimely; being barred by res judicata; being barred by the
19
Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and failing to state a claim. Plaintiff has filed an opposition, and
20
defendants have filed a reply. Plaintiff has also filed a sur-reply to defendants’ reply. For the
21
reasons that follow, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.1
22
23
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On October 4, 2012, plaintiff appeared before the Institution’s Classification Committee
24
(“ICC”). (Compl. at 8.) According to plaintiff’s prison file, during the commission of plaintiff’s
25
crime, plaintiff had shot the victim at close range, in the back of the head, “execution style,”
26
which qualified plaintiff for an irregular placement determination, otherwise known as an
27
28
1
Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED.
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Slaughter872mtd.wpd
1
“administrative deterrent.” (Id.) See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3375.2. Plaintiff objected to the
2
description of the commission of the offense. (Id.) Subsequently, plaintiff was transferred to a
3
higher security prison. (Id. at 8-9.) Plaintiff also states that this, and other, false information,
4
which are contained in plaintiff’s probation report, was used to deny plaintiff’s parole. (Id. at 3.)
5
6
Plaintiff alleges that his prison file contains false information that is repeatedly being
relied upon to plaintiff’s detriment. (Compl. at 3; Opp. at 9-10.)
7
8
9
DISCUSSION
I.
MOTION TO DISMISS AS UNTIMELY
Defendants first argue that plaintiff’s complaint is untimely. They proffer that this action
10
accrued on October 5, 2002, the date on which plaintiff submitted his initial administrative
11
grievance complaining about the false information, and that the statute of limitations expired
12
before plaintiff initiated this action. (Mot. at 7; Compl. Exh. at 65-66.) Plaintiff’s federal
13
complaint was filed on July 2012. On the other hand, plaintiff argues that his complaint is timely
14
because he filed his last state habeas petition about this issue on January 11, 2012. (Opp. at 1-2.)
15
Plaintiff’s complaint further alleges that he last asked the prison to correct his prison file on May
16
18, 2011.2 (Compl. at 3.)
17
Section 1983 does not contain its own limitations period. The appropriate period is that
18
of the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury torts. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471
19
U.S. 261, 276 (1985); TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999). In 2002, in
20
California, the general residual statute of limitations for personal injury actions was one-year.
21
See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Silva v. Crain, 169 F.3d
22
608, 610 (9th Cir. 1999) (limitations period for filing Section 1983 action in California was
23
governed by residual limitations period for personal injury actions in California, which was one
24
year); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (current codification of residual limitations period, which
25
became applicable on January 1, 2003, is two years). Thus, without tolling, if plaintiff’s cause of
26
27
28
2
This corresponds to the date upon which plaintiff’s administrative grievance was
denied at the Director’s level of review. (Defs.’ Req. Jud. Not. at AGO 0059.)
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Slaughter872mtd.wpd
2
1
2
action accrued in 2002, plaintiff’s federal complaint would be due in 2003.
A federal court must give effect to a state’s tolling provisions. See Hardin v. Straub, 490
3
U.S. 536, 543-44 (1989). Although plaintiff is not entitled to statutory tolling because he only
4
requested injunctive and declaratory relief, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1(c), defendants
5
concede that plaintiff is entitled to equitable tolling while plaintiff was pursuing other legal
6
remedies.
7
Under California law, equitable tolling “‘reliev[es] plaintiff from the bar of a limitations
8
statute when, possessing several legal remedies he, reasonably and in good faith, pursues one
9
designed to lessen the extent of his injuries or damage.’” Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d
10
1273, 1275 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Addison v. California, 21 Cal. 3d 313, 317 (1978)). Even
11
applying equitable tolling to this instant case, assuming the cause of action accrual date was in
12
2002, the underlying federal complaint was still filed too late. Plaintiff stated that he filed his
13
first administrative grievance on October 5, 2002. (Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff filed a grievance at
14
each level of review until the Director’s level of review issued its denial on February 4, 2003.
15
(Id.) Thus, plaintiff’s statute of limitations was tolled until February 4, 2003. Thereafter,
16
plaintiff filed a state habeas petition in Superior Court on March 18, 2003, which was denied on
17
an unspecified date. (Compl. at 7.) Then, plaintiff filed a state habeas petition in the California
18
Court of Appeal on April 10, 2003, which was denied on May 27, 2003.3 The California
19
Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s petition, filed on July 4, 2003, on March 30, 2004.4 Even
20
giving plaintiff tolling for the entire time he was seeking alternative relief both within the prison
21
system and the state courts, plaintiff’s federal complaint would have been due one year from
22
March 30, 2004 – that is, March 31, 2005. Thus, even with equitable tolling, plaintiff’s July
23
24
25
26
3
California Appellate Courts Case Information, appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov,
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=6&doc_id=282683&doc_no
=H025807 (last visited November 6, 2013).
4
27
28
California Appellate Courts Case Information, appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov,
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1849625&doc_n
o=S117946 (last visited November 6, 2013).
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Slaughter872mtd.wpd
3
1
2
2012 federal complaint is untimely.
However, the question of accrual depends on what exactly plaintiff’s claim is. Reading
3
plaintiff’s complaint liberally, and reviewing plaintiff’s exhibits, plaintiff is complaining that
4
prison officials have refused to correct false information in plaintiff’s prison file on more than
5
one occasion, and that the false information is being used to plaintiff’s detriment. In 2002, the
6
false information was used to qualify plaintiff for an irregular placement determination. In 2010,
7
the false information was considered during plaintiff’s parole suitability hearing, which resulted
8
in a denial of parole.
9
It is federal law that determines when a cause of action accrues and the statute of
10
limitations begins to run in a Section 1983 action. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007).
11
Under federal law, a claim generally accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of
12
the injury which is the basis of the action. See TwoRivers, 174 F.3d at 991-92. But accrual
13
ultimately depends on the substantive basis of the claim. See, e.g., Wallace, 549 U.S. at 388
14
(statute of limitations on a wrongful arrest/wrongful imprisonment claim begins to run when the
15
false imprisonment ends, when the plaintiff's confinement is no longer without legal process, but
16
rather becomes a confinement pursuant to legal process that is, for example, when he or she is
17
bound over by a magistrate or arraigned on charges); Pouncil v. Tilton, No. 10-16881, 704 F.3d
18
568, 581-83 (9th Cir. 2012) (claim that prison unlawfully denied prisoner conjugal visits with his
19
second wife in 2008 pursuant to a 1996 regulation was timely because it was an independent,
20
wrongful, and discrete act upon which his claim accrued, notwithstanding prisoner’s 2002
21
administrative grievance complaining of a denial of conjugal visits with his first wife).
22
Here, while it is true that plaintiff’s complaint discusses plaintiff’s general attempts to
23
have his prison file corrected, liberally construed, the court reads plaintiff’s due process claim to
24
include the more specific allegation that defendants refused to address his request to correct
25
plaintiff’s prison file on several specific instances, including in 2010, when the false information
26
was used to deny plaintiff parole. See, e.g., Pouncil, 704 F.3d at 581-82 (liberally construing pro
27
se prisoner’s complaint to allege a denial of a 2008 decision because it was unclear whether the
28
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Slaughter872mtd.wpd
4
1
2
prisoner was challenging a prison regulation or the 2008 decision).
In Pouncil, the Ninth Circuit recognized two different avenues to determine when a cause
3
of action accrues. Id. at 576-79; compare Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (1980)
4
(concluding that a college professor’s challenge to the termination of his tenure accrued when he
5
received a 1974 letter informing him of such termination at the end of the 1975 school year, and
6
not when the actual termination occurred in 1975), and Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009, 1014 (9th
7
Cir. 2001) (holding that an attorney’s claim that her legal mail and visitation rights to prison
8
inmates accrued when she received a letter informing her of such on January 20, 1996, and not
9
when she continued to receive those denials up until she filed suit in 1997), with National R.R.
10
Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (concluding that a plaintiff’s claim against his
11
employer for unlawful employment practices alleged discrete discriminatory acts, each of which
12
started the clock for the statute of limitations), and Cherosky v. Henderson, 330 F3d. 1243 (9th
13
Cir. 2003) (applying Morgan, and concluding that employees’ did not assert any discrete act that
14
would have fallen within the statute of limitations).
15
Here, plaintiff learned about the false information in his prison file in 2002. Although
16
plaintiff challenges the failure to correct the false information at that time, the court construes
17
plaintiff’s claim as challenging subsequent failures to correct the false information, and then
18
relying upon it to create plaintiff’s risk assessment report as well as to deny parole in 2010.
19
Thus, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a “discrete act” which triggered the statute of limitations
20
clock to run anew on March 22, 2010 – the day plaintiff received his risk assessment report.
21
(Defs.’ Req. Jud. Not. at AGO 0052.)
22
Using the 2010 discrete act, the applicable statute of limitations to plaintiff’s claim for
23
this discrete act is two years. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1; Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City
24
Of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 956 (9th Cir. 2011). Without tolling, plaintiff’s federal complaint
25
would be due on March 23, 2012. Here, however, plaintiff is entitled to equitable tolling from
26
October 19, 2010 – the date plaintiff filed his first administrative grievance – to May 18, 2011 –
27
the date plaintiff’s administrative grievance was denied at the Director’s level of review.
28
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Slaughter872mtd.wpd
5
1
Equitable tolling gives plaintiff approximately seven additional months from March 23, 2012.
2
Plaintiff filed his federal complaint four months later, on July 24, 2012. Thus, plaintiff’s claim
3
that prison officials failed to correct his prison file in 2010, is timely.
4
Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action as untimely is GRANTED to the extent
5
plaintiff alleges that prison officials failed to correct his prison file in 2002, and DENIED to the
6
extent plaintiff alleges that prison officials failed to correct his prison file in 2010.
7
II.
8
9
10
11
MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RES JUDICATA
Defendants argue that plaintiff’s claim is barred because plaintiff either expressly
litigated it in his state habeas action or because plaintiff could have raised it in his state habeas
petitions.
Under the Federal Full Faith and Credit Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, federal courts must
12
give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect as the state court judgment would receive
13
by another court of that state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738; Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951
14
(9th Cir. 2004). There is no exception to the rules of issue and claim preclusion for federal civil
15
rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Clark v. Yosemite Community College Dist., 785
16
F.2d 781, 788 n.9 (9th Cir. 1986). The Supreme Court has made it clear that a § 1983 claim
17
brought in federal court is subject to principles of issue and claim preclusion by a prior state
18
court judgment. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 97-98 (1980) (issue preclusive effect in
19
federal court of state proceedings is same as that accorded in state’s own courts); Silverton v.
20
Dep’t of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1347 (9th Cir. 1981) (“we hold that because of the nature of a
21
state habeas proceeding, a decision actually rendered should preclude an identical issue from
22
being relitigated in a subsequent § 1983 action if the state habeas court afforded a full and fair
23
opportunity for the issue to be heard and determined under federal standards.”).
24
To properly analyze this argument, the court must review plaintiff’s state habeas actions.
25
A.
26
On May 11, 2011, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Superior
27
State habeas actions
Court of Solano County. (Defs.’ Req. Jud. Not. at Exh. A, AGO 0001-0037.) In this petition,
28
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Slaughter872mtd.wpd
6
1
petitioner claimed that his right to due process and equal protection were violated because prison
2
officials failed to ensure that the prison file information that was relied upon in plaintiff’s
3
psychological evaluation, plaintiff’s risk assessment report, and plaintiff’s parole hearing was
4
accurate. (Defs.’ Req. Jud. Not., Exh. A at AGO 0003-0004.) On July 6, 2011, the Superior
5
Court denied plaintiff’s request for relief to obtain a new comprehensive risk assessment because
6
it failed to state a claim. (Id., Exh. B at AGO 0038.) The Superior Court also denied plaintiff’s
7
claim that plaintiff’s prison file contained errors because plaintiff did not provide evidence that
8
he had properly exhausted administrative remedies as to that claim. (Id.) Alternatively, the
9
Superior Court stated that even if plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies, plaintiff
10
failed to provide copies of available documentary evidence, and cited to In re Duvall, 9 Cal. 4th,
11
464, 475 (1995). (Id. at AGO 0039.)
12
On June 24, 2011, plaintiff filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Superior
13
Court of Solano County. (Id., Exh. C at AGO 0040-0066.) In this petition, plaintiff claimed that
14
the trial court violated plaintiff’s due process rights by considering the probation officer’s report
15
at sentencing, and the Department of Corrections relied on the probation officer’s report to make
16
decisions regarding incarceration and parole, even though it contained false information
17
regarding plaintiff. (Id. at AGO 0042, AGO 0067.) Plaintiff requested the information in his
18
prison file be verified before prison officials would be permitted to continue relying upon it for
19
other matters. (Id. at AGO 0043.) On August 22, 2011, the Superior Court recognized that
20
plaintiff had filed a previous petition regarding the same claim, and that plaintiff still had not
21
provided proper documentary evidence, citing to In re Duvall, 9 Cal. 4th 464, 474-64 (1995).
22
(Id. at AGO 0068.)
23
On January 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California
24
Supreme Court. (Compl., Exh. at 13.) In this petition, plaintiff claimed that his previous
25
Superior Court habeas petitions were denied in error, and reiterated that his probation officer’s
26
report contained false information that repeatedly was relied upon by prison officials. (Id., Exh.
27
at 14-21.) On April 18, 2012, the California Supreme Court summarily denied plaintiff’s
28
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Slaughter872mtd.wpd
7
1
petition, with a citation to Duvall, 9 Cal. 4th at 474. (Defs.’ Req. Jud. Not., Exh. E.)
2
B.
3
The doctrine of res judicata limits litigants’ ability to relitigate matters. Montana v.
Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel)
4
United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979). Specifically, issue preclusion forecloses “successive
5
litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination
6
essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim.”
7
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008). In other words, collateral estoppel will bar the
8
relitigation of issues explicitly litigated and necessary to the judgment. See Hiser v. Franklin, 94
9
F.3d 1287, 1292 (9th Cir. 1996). The purpose of this doctrine is to protect against vexatious
10
litigants, to conserve judicial resources, and to minimize the possibility of inconsistent decisions.
11
Montana, 440 U.S. at 153-54.
12
In California, “[c]ollateral estoppel precludes relitigation of issues argued and decided in
13
prior proceedings.” Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335, 341 (1990). “California courts
14
will apply collateral estoppel only if certain threshold requirements are met, and then only if
15
application of preclusion furthers the public policies underlying the doctrine. There are five
16
threshold requirements:
17
18
19
First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided
in a former proceeding. Second, this issue must have been actually litigated in the former
proceeding. Third, it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding.
Fourth, the decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits. Finally,
the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the
party to the former proceeding.
20
‘The party asserting collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing these requirements.’” In
21
re Harmon, 250 F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted).
22
In plaintiff’s federal complaint, plaintiff’s due process claim is that, in 2010, prison
23
officials refused to correct plaintiff’s prison file and continued to rely upon the false information
24
to plaintiff’s detriment. It appears that plaintiff raised this identical claim to both the Superior
25
Court and the California Supreme Court.
26
Defendants suggest that because plaintiff raised his due process claim in the state courts,
27
plaintiff’s claim should be collaterally estopped. However, both courts denied plaintiff’s
28
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Slaughter872mtd.wpd
8
1
petitions with a citation to In re Duvall, 9 Cal. 4th 464, 474 (1995). Duvall specifies that a
2
habeas application should “state fully and with particularity the facts on which relief is sought”
3
and “include copies of reasonably available documentary evidence supporting the claim.” Id. at
4
474-75.
5
The Ninth Circuit has concluded that a denial based on Duvall does not appear to be a
6
final decision on the merits that is irremediable. Cf. Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th
7
Cir. 2005) (analyzing whether a state petition was “properly filed” and concluding that citations
8
to Duvall and In re Swain, 34 Cal.2d 300, 303-304 (1949), are more akin to a demurrer rather
9
than a final ruling on the merits); King v. Roe, 340 F.3d 821. 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)
10
(recognizing that a citation to Duvall and Swain signify that “one must allege with sufficient
11
particularity the facts warranting habeas relief and allow amendment to comply”), abrogated on
12
other grounds by Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (2006); see also Howard v. Campbell, 305 Fed.
13
Appx. 442, 445 (9th Cir. 2008) (“In California, a Swain/Duvall dismissal affords the petitioner
14
the opportunity to refile an amended pleading that ‘allege[s] with sufficient particularity the facts
15
warranting habeas relief.’ [Petitioner’s] failure to do this renders his claim unexhausted.”
16
(citations omitted)).
17
18
Because defendants have not shown that plaintiff’s due process claim to the state courts
was final and on the merits, the due process claim is not barred by collateral estoppel.
19
C.
20
Similarly, defendants argue that plaintiff is precluded by res judicata. Res judicata “‘bars
21
all grounds for recovery which could have been asserted, whether they were or not, in a prior suit
22
between the same parties . . . on the same cause of action.’” C.D. Anderson & Co., Inc. v.
23
Lemos, 832 F.2d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing McClain v. Apodaca, 793 F.2d 1031, 1033
24
(9th Cir. 1986)). Under California law, claim preclusion applies when: (1) the party to be
25
precluded was a party or in privity with a party to the previous adjudication; (2) the second
26
lawsuit involves the same “cause of action” as the first; and (3) there was a final judgment on the
27
merits in the first lawsuit. San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys.,
Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata)
28
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Slaughter872mtd.wpd
9
1
568 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009). As a result, a “plaintiff cannot avoid the bar of claim
2
preclusion merely by alleging conduct by the defendant not alleged in the prior action, or by
3
pleading a new legal theory.” Gonzales v. California Dept. of Corrs., 782 F. Supp. 2d 834, 838
4
(N.D. Cal. 2011).
5
In light of the court’s above discussion of the state courts’ citations to Duvall, defendants
6
have not satisfied their burden of demonstrating that the state courts issued a final judgment on
7
the merits that would bar plaintiff’s claims in federal court.
8
9
10
11
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss this action on res judicata grounds is
DENIED.
III.
Motion to Dismiss Based on Heck v. Humphrey
Defendants argue that plaintiff’s claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
12
(1994). Specifically, defendants assert that plaintiff’s suit, if successful, would necessarily imply
13
the invalidity of the denial of his parole, which is impermissible.
14
Heck stated that, in order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction
15
or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
16
conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or
17
sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a
18
state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s
19
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. A claim for damages bearing
20
that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable
21
under Section 1983. Id. at 487. When a state prisoner seeks damages in a Section 1983 suit, the
22
district court must therefore consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would
23
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be
24
dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been
25
invalidated. Id. at 487. But if the district court determines that the plaintiff’s action, even if
26
successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the
27
plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to the suit
28
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Slaughter872mtd.wpd
10
1
such as abstaining in response to parallel state-court proceedings. Id. at 487 & n.8 (citing
2
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976)).
3
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005), makes clear that, “a state prisoner’s § 1983
4
action is barred . . . no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target
5
of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) if
6
success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its
7
duration.” Id. at 81-82 (emphasis added). In Wilkinson, the Supreme Court concluded that the
8
prisoners’ challenges could proceed under Section 1983 because success on those challenges did
9
not automatically imply shorter sentences. Rather, the best outcome for each prisoner would
10
result in a “new eligibility review, which will speed consideration of a new parole application,”
11
id. at 82, or, “a new parole hearing at which Ohio parole authorities may, in their discretion,
12
decline to shorten his prison term.” Id. Thus, the Supreme Court established that when relief
13
sought in a Section 1983 claim only has a possible, as opposed to necessary, effect on the length
14
of a prisoner’s custody, the Heck bar does not apply.
15
Similarly here, plaintiff’s requests for relief do not include release from imprisonment.
16
Nor can he obtain such relief, if successful in his due process claim. Although plaintiff’s claim
17
is directed at one factor used in the Board’s decision making process, success on his claim will
18
not guarantee a shorter confinement. Defendants have not shown that plaintiff’s success in this
19
action would “necessarily” or “likely” accelerate his release on parole. See Ramirez v. Galaza,
20
334 F.3d 850, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2003).
21
22
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Heck is DENIED.
IV.
Motion to Dismiss Based on Rooker-Feldman
23
Defendants argue that plaintiff’s complaint seeks to obtain federal review of his state
24
court judgments, which is barred by the doctrine known as Rooker-Feldman. See District of
25
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust
26
Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine forbids a losing party in state
27
court from filing suit in federal district court complaining of an injury caused by a state court
28
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Slaughter872mtd.wpd
11
1
judgment, and seeking federal court review and rejection of that judgment.” Bell v. City of
2
Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013), citing Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2011).
3
In the Ninth Circuit, Rooker-Feldman applies when “a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong
4
an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment
5
based on that decision.” Bell, 709 F. 3d at 897, quoting Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th
6
Cir. 2003). Importantly, “even if a plaintiff seeks relief from a state court judgment, such a suit
7
is a forbidden de facto appeal only if the plaintiff also alleges a legal error by the state court.”
8
Vasquez v. Rackauckas, 2013 WL 5911703, at *7 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2013) (emphasis in original),
9
quoting Bell, 709 F.3d at 897.
10
Here, plaintiff is not attempting a forbidden de facto appeal. Because plaintiff complains
11
of legal injuries caused by the defendants’ actions, rather than by the state courts’ judgments, his
12
claims are not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
13
14
Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Rooker-Feldman is DENIED.
V.
Motion to Dismiss for Failing to State a Claim
15
Defendants argue that, to the extent that plaintiff is challenging the denial of his 2011
16
administrative grievance, he fails to state a claim. There is no constitutional right to a prison
17
administrative appeal or grievance system. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.
18
2003). Thus, to the extent plaintiff is attempting to challenge the denial of his 2011
19
administrative grievance, defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim is GRANTED.
20
21
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action as untimely is GRANTED in part and DENIED
22
in part. Specifically, defendants’ motion to dismiss this action as untimely is GRANTED to the
23
extent plaintiff alleges that prison officials failed to correct his prison file in 2002, and DENIED
24
to the extent plaintiff alleges that prison officials failed to correct his prison file in 2010.
25
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED to the extent plaintiff is
26
attempting to challenge the denial of his 2011 administrative grievance. The remainder of
27
defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.
28
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Slaughter872mtd.wpd
12
1
Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion within
2
ninety days of the filing date of this order, or file a notice to this court that such a motion is not
3
warranted.
4
Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the court and served on
5
defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date defendants’ motion is filed.
6
Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v.
7
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment must come forward
8
with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim).
9
10
11
12
13
Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after plaintiff’s
opposition is filed.
The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing
will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date.
It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court and all
14
parties informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely
15
fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute
16
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: _________________
11/21/13
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Slaughter872mtd.wpd
13
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?