Watson v. Bellanger et al

Filing 5

ORDER IFP Application 1 is denied as moot. Clerk shall detach and file complaint 1 -1. Complaint is dismissed, without leave to amend, and Certificate of Appealability is denied. Clerk shall enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/18/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

______________________________________
)
)
ANDREW WATSON,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KELLY BELLANGER et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

3:14-cv-00684-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

12
13

This is a prisoner civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court now

14

screens the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismisses it, without leave to amend.

15

I.

16

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Andrew Watson is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of

17

Corrections (“NDOC”). He has sued several Defendants in this Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

18

alleging that NDOC calculated one of his consecutive sentences under an incorrect statutory

19

category and subtracted his pre-conviction jail time from the wrong sentence, the result in each

20

case being additional time on his sentence in violation of state law.

21

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

22

District courts must screen cases in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental

23

entity or its officers or employees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). A court must identify any cognizable

24

claims and must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, insufficiently pled, or directed

1 of 2

1

against immune defendants. See id. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). Pleading standards are governed by Rule

2

12(b)(6). Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012). When a court dismisses a

3

complaint upon screening, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with

4

directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the

5

deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th

6

Cir. 1995).

7

III.

ANALYSIS

8

If the determination of a claim in a plaintiff’s favor would imply the invalidity of a

9

conviction or sentence, it is not cognizable as the basis of any civil action (including under

10

§ 1983), unless and until the challenged conviction or sentence has been reversed on appeal or

11

vacated via writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). The Court

12

therefore dismisses, without leave to amend.
CONCLUSION

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
(ECF No. 1) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall DETACH and FILE the Complaint
(ECF No. 1-1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED, without leave to
amend, and a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated this 18th day of May, 2015.

23
24

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
2 of 2