1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL SNELL, No. 1:25-cv-00507-KES-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING ACTION BE DISMISSED 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF 14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al., (ECF No. 15) 15 Defendants.
16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff filed the instant complaint in this action on April 30, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) 22 On November 21, 2025, the Court screened the Plaintiff’s complaint, found that Plaintiff 23 failed to state a cognizable claim for relief, and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended 24 complaint. (ECF No. 14.) 25 Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s screening 26 order. Therefore, on January 6, 2026, the ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should 27 not be dismissed. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff has not filed a response and the time to do so has 28 1 passed. Accordingly, the operative complaint is Plaintiff’s original complaint, which fails to state 2 a cognizable claim for relief and dismissal is warranted. 3 II. 4 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 5 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 6 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 7 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 8 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 9 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 10 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 11 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim 12 upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 13 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 14 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 15 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 16 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 17 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); see also Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc., 18 985 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2021). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are 19 not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 20 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state a viable claim, 21 Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 22 plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 23 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. 24 Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. 25 III. 26 ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT 27 The Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint as true only for the purpose of 28 the screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 1 Plaintiff, an inmate at Tuolumne County Jail names Tuolumne County; “Tuolumne 2 County DA”; Tuolumne County Jail, and Superior Court of California – Tuolumne as Defendants 3 in this action. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2.) The gravamen of his complaint is that his rights have been 4 violated because in 2014, he was sentenced to nineteen years in prison for a crime that he did not 5 commit, and that he is being improperly held without bail. Id. at 3-4 (Claims One and Two). 6 Plaintiff also alleges that he is without access to the Court and no law library, and he was 7 improperly placed in a cell with a top bunk with no ladder, despite the fact that he has a “inguinal 8 hurnia.” Id. at 5 (Claim Three). As a result, he fell, and his condition was made worse. Id. 9 Plaintiff states that as a result of his conviction, he lost his children, freedom and property. 10 Id. at 3. He also alleges that his right to a fair trial was damaged. Id. at 4. Lastly, Plaintiff states 11 that because of this placement, he fell, which made his injury worse. Id. at 5. He seeks release 12 from jail; the appointment of counsel, and $118,000.000 in monetary relief. Id. at 6. 13 IV. 14 DISCUSSION 15 A. Claims One and Two 16 A prisoner cannot use a Section 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his 17 confinement. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 18 475, 489 (1973)). He must seek federal habeas corpus relief or appropriate state relief instead. 19 Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 78. When the intent to bring a habeas petition is not clear, a district court 20 should not convert defective Section 1983 claims into a habeas petition. Trimble v. City of Santa 21 Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). 22 Claims One and Two challenge the fact and/or duration of Plaintiff’s sentence. (ECF No. 23 1 at 3-4.) Such claims are not properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because they are habeas 24 claims, they should have been brought under the appropriate habeas statute, likely 28 U.S.C. § 25 2254. 26 Furthermore, Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be converted to a habeas petition. Indeed, the 27 bulk of the pleading – Claims One and Two – challenges Plaintiff’s conviction and sentence, 28 which is appropriate for a Section 2254 habeas petition. However, Plaintiff does not specifically 1 name the Tuolumne County Sheriff, his custodian, as a party to the action. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2; see 2 also Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 2(a); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 3 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). In addition, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Claims 4 for damages are neither appropriate nor available on habeas review. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 5 U.S. 539, 554 (1974) (citation omitted). Thus, it is not clear that Plaintiff intended to bring a 6 habeas petition. When a plaintiff’s intentions are not clear, the Court should not convert a 7 defective Section 1983 complaint into a habeas petition. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 8 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). 9 B. Claim Three 10 Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 11 346 (1996); Bounds v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL SNELL, No. 1:25-cv-00507-KES-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING ACTION BE DISMISSED 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF 14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al., (ECF No. 15) 15 Defendants.
16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff filed the instant complaint in this action on April 30, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) 22 On November 21, 2025, the Court screened the Plaintiff’s complaint, found that Plaintiff 23 failed to state a cognizable claim for relief, and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended 24 complaint. (ECF No. 14.) 25 Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s screening 26 order. Therefore, on January 6, 2026, the ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should 27 not be dismissed. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff has not filed a response and the time to do so has 28 1 passed. Accordingly, the operative complaint is Plaintiff’s original complaint, which fails to state 2 a cognizable claim for relief and dismissal is warranted. 3 II. 4 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 5 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 6 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 7 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 8 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 9 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 10 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 11 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim 12 upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 13 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 14 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 15 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 16 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 17 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); see also Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc., 18 985 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2021). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are 19 not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 20 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state a viable claim, 21 Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 22 plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 23 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. 24 Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. 25 III. 26 ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT 27 The Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint as true only for the purpose of 28 the screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 1 Plaintiff, an inmate at Tuolumne County Jail names Tuolumne County; “Tuolumne 2 County DA”; Tuolumne County Jail, and Superior Court of California – Tuolumne as Defendants 3 in this action. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2.) The gravamen of his complaint is that his rights have been 4 violated because in 2014, he was sentenced to nineteen years in prison for a crime that he did not 5 commit, and that he is being improperly held without bail. Id. at 3-4 (Claims One and Two). 6 Plaintiff also alleges that he is without access to the Court and no law library, and he was 7 improperly placed in a cell with a top bunk with no ladder, despite the fact that he has a “inguinal 8 hurnia.” Id. at 5 (Claim Three). As a result, he fell, and his condition was made worse. Id. 9 Plaintiff states that as a result of his conviction, he lost his children, freedom and property. 10 Id. at 3. He also alleges that his right to a fair trial was damaged. Id. at 4. Lastly, Plaintiff states 11 that because of this placement, he fell, which made his injury worse. Id. at 5. He seeks release 12 from jail; the appointment of counsel, and $118,000.000 in monetary relief. Id. at 6. 13 IV. 14 DISCUSSION 15 A. Claims One and Two 16 A prisoner cannot use a Section 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his 17 confinement. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 18 475, 489 (1973)). He must seek federal habeas corpus relief or appropriate state relief instead. 19 Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 78. When the intent to bring a habeas petition is not clear, a district court 20 should not convert defective Section 1983 claims into a habeas petition. Trimble v. City of Santa 21 Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). 22 Claims One and Two challenge the fact and/or duration of Plaintiff’s sentence. (ECF No. 23 1 at 3-4.) Such claims are not properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because they are habeas 24 claims, they should have been brought under the appropriate habeas statute, likely 28 U.S.C. § 25 2254. 26 Furthermore, Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be converted to a habeas petition. Indeed, the 27 bulk of the pleading – Claims One and Two – challenges Plaintiff’s conviction and sentence, 28 which is appropriate for a Section 2254 habeas petition. However, Plaintiff does not specifically 1 name the Tuolumne County Sheriff, his custodian, as a party to the action. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2; see 2 also Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 2(a); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 3 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). In addition, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Claims 4 for damages are neither appropriate nor available on habeas review. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 5 U.S. 539, 554 (1974) (citation omitted). Thus, it is not clear that Plaintiff intended to bring a 6 habeas petition. When a plaintiff’s intentions are not clear, the Court should not convert a 7 defective Section 1983 complaint into a habeas petition. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 8 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). 9 B. Claim Three 10 Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 11 346 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), limited in part on other grounds by 12 Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354. The right of access to the courts is limited to non-frivolous direct criminal 13 appeals, habeas corpus proceedings, and section 1983 actions. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 n.3, 14 354-55. In order to state a claim for denial of the right to access the courts, a prisoner must 15 establish that he has suffered “actual injury,” a jurisdictional requirement derived from the 16 standing doctrine. Id. at 349. An "actual injury" is “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated 17 or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” Id. at 18 348 (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1155 n.1 19 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that "[f]ailure to show that a 'non-frivolous legal claim had been frustrated' 20 is fatal" to a claim for denial of access to legal materials) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 & n.4). 21 Here, Plaintiff has not established that he has suffered an actual injury, hence this claim 22 fails to state a cognizable claim. 23 V. 24 RECOMMENDATION 25 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the instant action be 26 dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 27 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 1 | days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 2 | objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages in length, including exhibits. The document should 3 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is 4 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 5 | onappeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 6 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Se 9 | Dated: _ January 30, 2026 OF STANLEY A. BOONE 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28