Taylor v. Harris et al

Filing 8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 7/13/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
RALPH ANTONIO TAYLOR,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 13-1861 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

17
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the
19
reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED.
20
DISCUSSION
21
A.

Standard of Review

22
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner
23
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See
24
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss
25
any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or
26
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
27
1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.
28
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.13\Taylor861habftsc.wpd

1

Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

2

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

3

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

4

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v.

5

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

6

B.

7

Legal Claims
Plaintiff names as Defendants the California Attorney General, the Warden of the prison,

8

and a Deputy District Attorney. In essence, Plaintiff complains that his 1987 plea agreement

9

was breached because he did not realize that it could be used against him in a future conviction

10
11

to enhance any future sentence.
“‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a

12

petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of

13

1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the lawfulness of

14

confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v.

15

McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750

16

(2004)). Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier

17

release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011) (quoting

18

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)). “Where the prisoner’s claim would not

19

‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ however, suit may be brought under § 1983.’” Skinner, 131

20

S. Ct. at 1293 (quoting Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82). As a consequence, challenges to prison

21

conditions have traditionally been cognizable only via § 1983, while challenges implicating the

22

fact or duration of confinement must be brought through a habeas petition. Docken v. Chase,

23

393 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2004).

24

Here, Plaintiff is not challenging the conditions of his confinement. He is attacking the

25

lawfulness of his confinement altogether. Because Plaintiff’s claim, if successful, could affect

26

the duration of his custody, and the determination of the claim could result in entitlement to an

27

earlier release, Plaintiff’s claim must be brought in habeas. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d

28

850, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2003) (implying that claim, which if successful would “necessarily” or
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.13\Taylor861habftsc.wpd

2

1

“likely” accelerate the prisoner’s release on parole, must be brought in a habeas petition).

2

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff’s re-filing as a petition for

3

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

4

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED:

7/13/13
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.13\Taylor861habftsc.wpd

3