Mwasi v. Wheeler

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 10, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01483
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 K. MWASI, Case No. 22-cv-01483-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 12 10 WHEELER, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 14 amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and plaintiff filed a second amended 15 complaint. 16 DISCUSSION 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 21 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 23 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 24 Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 27 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 1 cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 2 the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations 3 omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 4 face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 5 standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 6 must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 7 should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 8 to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 9 LEGAL CLAIMS 10 Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to follow state law, which resulted in the denial of 11 parole and time credits and delayed future parole hearings. He seeks money damages. To state a 12 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution 13 or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was committed by a 14 person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 15 Plaintiff says that defendants violated Proposition 57 which resulted in the denial of parole, 16 time credits and a delay in future parole hearings. The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act or 17 “Proposition 57” was approved by California voters on November 8, 2016, and went into effect 18 the next day. People v. Dynes, 20 Cal. App. 5th 523, 526 (2018). Proposition 57 added Article I, 19 section 32 to the California Constitution, providing for early parole consideration for certain 20 California prisoners. Section 32 states in relevant part: “Any person convicted of a nonviolent 21 felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after 22 completing the full term of his or her primary offense” and directs the CDCR to “adopt regulations 23 in furtherance of these provisions.” Cal. Const., art. I, § 32. 24 Plaintiff cannot maintain a due process claim, or any other claim, based on the denial of 25 parole consideration, because he has no protected property interest in parole. There is no right 26 under the U.S. Constitution to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence. 27 Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). In addition, Proposition 57 is purely a matter of 1 Section 1983. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (only deprivation of rights secured by federal law is 2 actionable under Section 1983); see also Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996) 3 (state law issue cannot be transformed into federal law issue by merely invoking due process). 4 || Plaintiff is not entitled to federal relief for violations of prison regulations or state law. Plaintiff 5 was provided multiple amendments but still fails to state a claim for relief. Because further 6 amendment would be futile, this case is dismissed without leave to amend. Plaintiff may seek 7 relief in state court. 8 CONCLUSION 9 1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension (Dkt. No. 12) is GRATNED and the Court has 10 || reviewed the second amended complaint. This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 11 2. The Clerk is requested to close this case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 13 Dated: March 10, 2023

15 JAMES TO = 16 United Stgfes District Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28