(PC) Williams v. CDCR

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:25-cv-0808 JLT SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 14 CDCR, COURT TO DISMISS CASE

15 Defendant. (Doc. 9)

16 17 Melvin Williams asserts that he suffered violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights 18 and seeks referral to the Board of Prisons Hearings for a Proposition 57 hearing related to his 19 2013 conviction. (See generally Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found he failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 9 at 3-7.) The 21 magistrate judge found that because Plaintiff was convicted of two counts of attempted murder— 22 a violent felony under California law—he was “not entitled to parole consideration pursuant to 23 Proposition 57.” (Id. at 5.) The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff failed to state a Fourteenth 24 Amendment claim, because there were no allegations to support Plaintiff’s conclusion that the 25 denial of early parole consideration under Proposition 57 was caused by a discriminatory intent or 26 motive. (Id. at 5-6.) The magistrate judge found these pleading deficiencies could not be cured 27 and recommended the Court dismiss the action “without leave to amend, for failure to state a 28 cognizable claim for relief.” (Id. at 7.) 1 Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 10.) 2 Plaintiff asserts the magistrate judge erred by stating that “attempted murder under California law 3 is violent” because “attempted murder is considered a serious felony under Penal Code § 4 1192.7(c).” (Id. at 1.) He also indicates that he “disagrees” with the magistrate judge indicating 5 that attempted murder was his “primary offense,” arguing that his “primary offense is corporal 6 injury” under Cal. Penal Code § 273.5. (Id. at 2.) In support of these assertions, Plaintiff filed his 7 “Felony Abstract of Judgment,” an excerpt of the Third Amended Information filed in his 8 criminal case, a minute order related to a prior conviction, and a probation report from 2012. (Id. 9 at 4-15.) Plaintiff does not object to the findings related to his Fourteenth Amendment claim. 10 (See generally Doc. 10.) 11 Plaintiff’s assertions regarding his convictions and Proposition 57 are unavailing. The 12 parole considerations are for those convicted of a nonviolent felony. Under Proposition 57, 13 violent felonies are defined in California Penal Code Section 667.5(c). See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 15, § 3490. As the magistrate judge found, “attempted murder” is identified as a “violent felony” 15 under Section 667.6(c)(12). The exhibits provided by Plaintiff also show a conviction for 16 burglary in the first degree (Doc. 10 at 5), which is likewise identified as a “violent felony” under 17 California law. See Cal. Pen. Code § 667.5(c)(21). Towards this end, it appears Plaintiff is not 18 eligible for a Proposition 57 parole hearing under state law. 19 Regardless, courts have repeatedly determined that a plaintiff cannot state a claim under 20 Section 1983 related to a Proposition 57 parole hearing, “because the crux of their complaints 21 concerned an alleged violation of state law.” See Ramos v. Spearman, 2020 WL 1450731, at *2 22 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2020) (collecting cases); Stewart v. Borders, 2019 WL 3766557, at *5 (C.D. 23 Cal. Aug. 9, 2019) (“Section 1983 complaints challenging the CDCR’s application of Proposition 24 57 failed to allege a cognizable claim under Section 1983”); see also Galen v. Cty. of Los 25 Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Section 1983 requires [plaintiff] to demonstrate a 26 violation of federal law, not state law”). Consequently, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim 27 under Section 1983. 28 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 1 | Having carefully reviewed the matter—including Plaintiff's objections— the Court concludes the 2 | Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court 3 | ORDERS: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated (Doc. 9) are ADOPTED in full. 5 2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: _ August 12, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28