(PC) Jones v. Gralla ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KEVIN JONES JR., Case No. 2:22-cv-00449-DAD-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE SECOND AMENDED 12 v. COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 13 WENDY GRALLA, et al., ECF No. 20 14 Defendants. FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE FOR 15 OBJECTIONS 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleges in this section 1983 action that defendants violated his 21 rights by prolonging his sentence and failing to release him on the correct date. ECF No. 20 at 5, 22 7, & 9. These allegations are non-cognizable insofar as succeeding in this suit would appear to 23 necessarily result in an earlier release date; these claims should, therefore, be brought in a habeas 24 action. I informed plaintiff of this in my previous screening order and offered him an opportunity 25 to convert this action into a habeas petition. ECF No. 19. He declined to convert and filed 26 another amended complaint. Given that his claims remain unchanged, I recommend that this 27 action be dismissed. 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 4 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 5 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 7 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 II. Analysis 26 As in his last complaint, plaintiff’s allegations continue to implicate defendants’ failure to 27 release him on an earlier date. See ECF No. 20 at 9 (alleging that his correct release date is 28 January 26, 2023, and that defendants’ continued custody over him constitutes false arrest and 1 cruel and unusual punishment). Thus, success in this suit would necessarily result in an earlier 2 release from prison and the claims must be brought, if at all, in a habeas action. See Wilkinson v. 3 Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (habeas corpus is the sole remedy for a prisoner challenging the 4 fact or duration of his confinement); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2016) 5 (same). Plaintiff argues that this action should still proceed under section 1983 because “he has 6 no further court proceedings” and defendants’ failure to release him contravenes the Eighth 7 Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. ECF No. 20 at 9, 11. The fact that 8 there are no additional court proceedings at the state level does not provide a basis for proceeding 9 under section 1983. And a plaintiff may not convert a habeas claim into one under section 1983 10 merely by construing a failure to grant release as a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. See 11 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489-90 (1994) (“Just as a cause of action for malicious 12 prosecution does not accrue until the criminal proceedings have terminated in the plaintiff's favor, 13 so also a § 1983 cause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional conviction or 14 sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated.”) (internal 15 citations omitted). 16 The question of whether to convert this action into a habeas petition has been settled by 17 plaintiff’s decision to persist with section 1983 complaints. As noted above, I offered plaintiff the 18 chance to convert his action in my previous screening order, and he declined. Moreover, given 19 that plaintiff is now housed in the Los Angeles County Jail, the defendants named in this action 20 are no longer the proper respondents in a habeas action. It is also uncertain whether venue for a 21 habeas petition would be proper in this district. Thus, I decline to recommend that this action be 22 converted. If plaintiff disagrees with this decision, he may address the issue in any objections he 23 chooses to file. 24 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 20, 25 be DISMISSED with prejudice and without further leave to amend. 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 1 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 2 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 3 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 4 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 5 | appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 6 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 24, 2023 qe 10 JEREMY D. PETERSON i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28