(PC) Williams v. Ramsey ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH WILLIAMS, No. 2: 23-cv-0668 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 T. RAMSEY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983, and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 19 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 24 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 25 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 26 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments 27 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These 28 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the 1 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(2). 3 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 4 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 5 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 6 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 7 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 9 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 10 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 11 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 12 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 13 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 14 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 15 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 16 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 17 1227. 18 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 19 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 20 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 21 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 22 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 23 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 24 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 25 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 26 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 27 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 28 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 1 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 2 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 3 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 4 The only named defendant is Correctional Lieutenant T. Ramsey. Plaintiff alleges that 5 defendant Ramsey denied plaintiff due process during a prison disciplinary hearing by denying 6 plaintiff’s request to be heard, plaintiff’s right to call a staff witness and to present documentary 7 evidence. In particular, plaintiff appears to claim that defendant Ramsey refused to consider 8 responses to written questions by plaintiff’s witnesses inmate Henderson and Correctional Officer 9 Dominguez. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Ramsey denied plaintiff’s request to call Officer 10 Cherniss as a witness. 11 Following the disciplinary hearing, plaintiff was found guilty of a serious rules violation, 12 i.e., possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. As relief, plaintiff seeks 13 declaratory relief in the form of an order finding that plaintiff’s due process rights were violated. 14 Plaintiff also seeks any additional relief the court deems just. 15 When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a 16 constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a 17 writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). In the complaint, plaintiff 18 does not address whether he was assessed time credits for his disciplinary conviction of the 19 serious rule violation. If plaintiff was assessed time credits which lengthen his sentence, then his 20 due process claims should be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus rather than a civil 21 rights action. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff 22 files an amended complaint, he shall clarify whether he was assessed time credits. If plaintiff was 23 not assessed time credits, plaintiff shall address the punishment imposed as a result of his 24 disciplinary conviction. 25 Plaintiff does not seek money damages. However, the undersigned observes that if 26 plaintiff was assessed time credits, a claim by plaintiff for money based on the alleged due 27 process violations would likely be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 28 //// 1 When seeking damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a 2 § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, 3 expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such 4 determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 5 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim for damages 6 bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not 7 cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488. This “favorable termination” requirement has been 8 extended to actions under § 1983 that, if successful, would imply the invalidity of prison 9 administrative decisions which result in a forfeiture of good-time credits. Edwards v. Balisok, 10 520 U.S. 641, 643–647 (1997). 11 For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 12 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 13 amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete 14 in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists because, as a general 15 rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez v. County of San 16 Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint supersedes the 17 original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation omitted)). Once 18 plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the 19 case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the 20 involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 21 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 23 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 24 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 26 Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 27 herewith. 28 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. ] 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 2 || Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 3 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 4 b. An original of the Amended Complaint. 5 || Plaintiff's amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 6 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 7 || also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 8 Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the 9 || dismissal of this action. 10 Dated: April 18, 2023 Aectl Aharon 12 KENDALL J.NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 Will668.14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KENNETH WILLIAMS, No. 2: 23-cv-0668 KJN P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT 13 T. RAMSEY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 17 filed______________. 18 _____________ Amended Complaint 19 DATED: 20 ________________________________ 21 Plaintiff 22 23 24 25 26 27 28