1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAMEL JOWAN WILSON, No. 2:21-cv-0091 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 R. SHELTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 19 2. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff has also filed a motion for an injunction. ECF No. 6. 21 For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to amend the 22 complaint. In addition, the undersigned will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction 23 be denied. 24 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 25 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 26 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 27 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 28 //// 1 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 2 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 3 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 4 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 5 Cir. 1984). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 6 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 7 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 8 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 9 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 10 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 11 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 12 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 13 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 14 Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 15 this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. 16 Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 17 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 18 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 19 II. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 20 Plaintiff, an inmate at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), names HDSP Correctional 21 Case Records Analysts R. Shelton, D. Murphy, M. Hoff, and S. Witchell, T. Thompson, J. 22 Pickett, K. Wallace, and A. Garsa as defendants in this action.1 ECF No. 1 at 1-3. The complaint 23 presents three claims, all of which relate to Defendants’ alleged failure to apply the abstract of 24 judgment and legal status summary generated in two state cases of Plaintiff’s when calculating 25 his sentence. Id. at 4-6. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to follow the state 26 1 Although Plaintiff does not identify Defendants T. Thompson, J. Pickett, K. Wallace, and A. 27 Garsa individually as Correctional Case Records Analysts (see ECF No. 1 at 1-3), he does reference “the named Defendants” as “correctional case records analysts.” See generally ECF 28 No. 1 at 1-3. 1 court directives in the two judgments which ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. 2 See ECF No. 1 at 5-6. Defendants allegedly failed to “apply [his] concurrent credit rate and 3 actual days in custody.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges this violated his rights to due and access to 4 courts. Id. at 4-6. 5 Plaintiff further asserts that because Defendants failed to apply the sentences in his two 6 state cases concurrently, he has experienced harms including intentional infliction of emotional 7 distress, medical malpractice, legal malpractice, discrimination, false arrest, and libel.2 See ECF 8 No. 1 at 4. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that his right hand was broken and that he has been 9 subjected to unprofessional cavity searches, property damage, the hazards of trial, and punitive 10 damages that accompany county and state incarceration. Id. at 5-6. 11 To remedy Plaintiff’s harm, he seeks alternative dispute resolution pursuant to California 12 Rules of Court Subsection 3.800(i). Id. at 7. He also asks the Court to enforce California Penal 13 Code Section 851.8, asking that it be applied, “toward any accusatory pleading within the 14 jurisdiction of [the] Department of Justice.” See id. Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to “include a 15 set up or citation with [him] per § 7.11 Cal. Crim. Law and procedure practice.” Id. He seeks 16 monetary damages that exceed $25,000.00. See id. 17 III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 18 Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is in the form of a letter which asks the Court for 19 “relief out of CDCR custody.” ECF No. 6 at 1. Attached to it is what Plaintiff describes as “an 20 accurate legal status summary which is the cause of action.” Id. The motion further states, in 21 relevant part, that the Office of the Attorney General “may need to run a query in [Plaintiff’s] 22 name in order to enforce the judgment of the [state trial] court as to apply concurrent all credits.” 23 Id. 24 //// 25 //// 26 2 Plaintiff alleges no facts supporting his assertion that there is a causal link between Defendants’ 27 purported failure to properly implement the abstracts of judgment in his cases and the physical and mental health injuries he has experienced. See generally ECF No. 1 at 4-6. Therefore, the 28 Court does not address the assertion. 1 IV. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 2 A. Nexus to Duration of Custody 3 At the core of both Plaintiff’s complaint and his motion for injunctive relief is the 4 assertion that Defendants have either misapplied or incorrectly calculated his sentence and that 5 these errors have improperly affected the duration of his custody. ECF Nos. 1, 6. Plaintiff 6 accordingly alleges that he is being subject to “unlawful detainer” (ECF No. 1 at 5), and states 7 that he is “in need of emergency injunctive relief out of CDCR custody” (ECF No. 6 at 1). 8 Plaintiff contends the erroneous sentencing calculation has violated his right to access the courts 9 and his right to due process. ECF No. 1 at 4-6.
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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAMEL JOWAN WILSON, No. 2:21-cv-0091 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 R. SHELTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 19 2. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff has also filed a motion for an injunction. ECF No. 6. 21 For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to amend the 22 complaint. In addition, the undersigned will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction 23 be denied. 24 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 25 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 26 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 27 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 28 //// 1 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 2 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 3 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 4 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 5 Cir. 1984). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 6 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 7 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 8 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 9 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 10 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 11 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 12 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 13 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 14 Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 15 this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. 16 Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 17 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 18 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 19 II. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 20 Plaintiff, an inmate at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), names HDSP Correctional 21 Case Records Analysts R. Shelton, D. Murphy, M. Hoff, and S. Witchell, T. Thompson, J. 22 Pickett, K. Wallace, and A. Garsa as defendants in this action.1 ECF No. 1 at 1-3. The complaint 23 presents three claims, all of which relate to Defendants’ alleged failure to apply the abstract of 24 judgment and legal status summary generated in two state cases of Plaintiff’s when calculating 25 his sentence. Id. at 4-6. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to follow the state 26 1 Although Plaintiff does not identify Defendants T. Thompson, J. Pickett, K. Wallace, and A. 27 Garsa individually as Correctional Case Records Analysts (see ECF No. 1 at 1-3), he does reference “the named Defendants” as “correctional case records analysts.” See generally ECF 28 No. 1 at 1-3. 1 court directives in the two judgments which ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. 2 See ECF No. 1 at 5-6. Defendants allegedly failed to “apply [his] concurrent credit rate and 3 actual days in custody.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges this violated his rights to due and access to 4 courts. Id. at 4-6. 5 Plaintiff further asserts that because Defendants failed to apply the sentences in his two 6 state cases concurrently, he has experienced harms including intentional infliction of emotional 7 distress, medical malpractice, legal malpractice, discrimination, false arrest, and libel.2 See ECF 8 No. 1 at 4. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that his right hand was broken and that he has been 9 subjected to unprofessional cavity searches, property damage, the hazards of trial, and punitive 10 damages that accompany county and state incarceration. Id. at 5-6. 11 To remedy Plaintiff’s harm, he seeks alternative dispute resolution pursuant to California 12 Rules of Court Subsection 3.800(i). Id. at 7. He also asks the Court to enforce California Penal 13 Code Section 851.8, asking that it be applied, “toward any accusatory pleading within the 14 jurisdiction of [the] Department of Justice.” See id. Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to “include a 15 set up or citation with [him] per § 7.11 Cal. Crim. Law and procedure practice.” Id. He seeks 16 monetary damages that exceed $25,000.00. See id. 17 III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 18 Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is in the form of a letter which asks the Court for 19 “relief out of CDCR custody.” ECF No. 6 at 1. Attached to it is what Plaintiff describes as “an 20 accurate legal status summary which is the cause of action.” Id. The motion further states, in 21 relevant part, that the Office of the Attorney General “may need to run a query in [Plaintiff’s] 22 name in order to enforce the judgment of the [state trial] court as to apply concurrent all credits.” 23 Id. 24 //// 25 //// 26 2 Plaintiff alleges no facts supporting his assertion that there is a causal link between Defendants’ 27 purported failure to properly implement the abstracts of judgment in his cases and the physical and mental health injuries he has experienced. See generally ECF No. 1 at 4-6. Therefore, the 28 Court does not address the assertion. 1 IV. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 2 A. Nexus to Duration of Custody 3 At the core of both Plaintiff’s complaint and his motion for injunctive relief is the 4 assertion that Defendants have either misapplied or incorrectly calculated his sentence and that 5 these errors have improperly affected the duration of his custody. ECF Nos. 1, 6. Plaintiff 6 accordingly alleges that he is being subject to “unlawful detainer” (ECF No. 1 at 5), and states 7 that he is “in need of emergency injunctive relief out of CDCR custody” (ECF No. 6 at 1). 8 Plaintiff contends the erroneous sentencing calculation has violated his right to access the courts 9 and his right to due process. ECF No. 1 at 4-6. 10 The complaint does not specify what sentences were imposed by the trial court, precisely 11 how Defendants miscalculated Plaintiff’s sentence, or what the sentence and presumptive release 12 date would be if calculated correctly. Plaintiff generally references “concurrent cases at a credit 13 rate of 50%,” and states in conclusory fashion that his continued incarceration demonstrates the 14 effect of Defendants’ error. Id. at 4, 6. The latter statement suggests that plaintiff is currently 15 being held in custody in violation of his rights. Both statements imply that a finding of error by 16 Defendants, and its correction, would necessarily result in an earlier release date. 17 Claims challenging the fact or duration of a criminal sentence—including claims that 18 challenge administrative actions affecting the length of custody—fall within the core of habeas 19 corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). State prisoners may not attack the fact 20 or length of their confinement in a § 1983 action and “habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy” 21 for such claims. Id. at 490; see also Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 930 (9th Cir. 2016) 22 (holding that habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for claims that lie at the core of habeas, while 23 § 1983 is the exclusive remedy for state prisoner claims that do not lie at the core of habeas). 24 The complaint before the court does not contain enough facts about Plaintiff’s sentence(s) 25 and the alleged errors to permit determination whether his claims may be brought under § 1983 or 26 must be brought in habeas. If success on his claims would necessarily lead to speedier release, 27 Plaintiff’s claims fall within the core of habeas jurisdiction. See Nettles, supra. In that case, a 28 suit for damages may not be brought unless and until Plaintiff first has his sentence set aside or 1 corrected, in habeas proceedings or otherwise. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643 2 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). 3 B. Claims Fail to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted 4 The complaint alleges in general terms that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s First and 5 Fourteenth Amendment rights when they failed to follow the trial court’s abstract of judgment 6 and legal status summary to properly apply the concurrent credit rate and calculate Plaintiff’s 7 actual days in custody. ECF No. 1 at 4-6. In support of his general assertions regarding the 8 proper method of calculation, Plaintiff cites to what appear to be state prison regulations and/or 9 criminal code sections as well as various Senate bills. Id. at 5-6. 10 Despite Plaintiff’s invocation of his federal Constitutional rights, all three of Plaintiff’s 11 claims are based in state law. Accordingly, they are not cognizable under Section 1983. “Section 12 1983 limits a federal court’s analysis to the deprivation of rights secured by the federal 13 ‘Constitution and laws’.” Lovell By & Through Lovell v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 90 F.3d 367, 14 370 (9th Cir. 1996); Estelle v. Gamble, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991). The statute requires a plaintiff to 15 demonstrate a violation of federal law, not state law. See Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 16 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007). 17 Plaintiff cannot transform a state law issue into a federal one by merely asserting a 18 violation of due process. Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996); see, e.g., Paul v. 19 Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 700 (1976) (requiring Section 1983 claim show specific constitutional 20 guarantee safeguarding interests that have been invaded). Moreover, a state or local 21 government’s failure to enforce its own procedures or regulations is not grounds for a federal 22 claim. See Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff’s Dept., 249 F.3d 921, 930 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 23 Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir 1997) (“[T]here is no § 1983 liability for violating 24 prison policy. [Plaintiff] must prove that [the official] violated his constitutional right . . . ”)); 25 see, e.g., Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Case); Ove v. Gwinn, 26 265 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding allegation that the drawing of plaintiff’s blood by 27 those not authorized to do so under California Vehicle Code, without more, did not state 28 constitutional claim). 1 For these reasons, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Although it does not appear that Plaintiff will be able to cure these 3 deficiencies, he will be given an opportunity to amend the complaint. 4 V. MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 5 Plaintiff’s motion, which seeks “emergency injunctive relief out of CDCR custody” (see 6 ECF No. 6 at 1), must be denied because the claims Plaintiff has presented in the instant 7 complaint are not cognizable for the reasons explained above. Consequently, this Court has no 8 jurisdiction to grant an injunction. 9 “[W]here there is no underlying cause of action over which the district court has primary 10 jurisdiction, it may not entertain an application for an injunction.” Sires v. State of Washington, 11 314 F.2d 883, 884 (9th Cir. 1963). Because Plaintiff has not presented a cause of action over 12 which this Court has jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s motion cannot be considered. See generally City of 13 Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 493-96 14 (1974). Therefore, the undersigned will recommend that the motion for preliminary injunction be 15 denied. 16 VI. LEAVE TO AMEND 17 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the conditions 18 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See generally 19 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms 20 how each named defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 21 (9th Cir. 1981). There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative 22 link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Id.; Johnson v. 23 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of 24 official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 25 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (brackets added) (citations omitted). 26 Plaintiff is also informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 27 his amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 28 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 1 amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 2 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) (citations omitted), 3 overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (claims 4 dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled in subsequent 5 amended complaint to preserve appeal)). Once Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the previous 6 complaints no longer serve any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in 7 an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 8 alleged. 9 VII. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY OF THIS ORDER FOR A PRO SE LITIGANT 10 The Court has determined that your complaint fails to state claims upon which relief may 11 be granted. This is because each of your claims ask the Court to interpret California regulations 12 and state law and to determine whether Defendants have properly implemented the state court 13 orders in the abstracts of judgment and legal status summaries for your two state cases. 14 If you are claiming that the length of your sentence has been affected by Defendant’s 15 mistakes, then you need to bring a habeas petition and not a civil rights lawsuit. If you want 16 damages for having been incarcerated too long, you must first get the sentence corrected or set 17 aside on appeal or in habeas before filing a lawsuit for damages. 18 As a separate matter, section 1983 does not allow this Court to review Defendants’ 19 application of state law and regulations to your case, and to decide whether they were properly 20 applied. Your claims cannot be turned into federal ones just by describing them as violations of 21 your First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The facts in your complaint do not show more than 22 alleged errors of state law. You may amend the complaint if you think you can fix these 23 problems. 24 Finally, because your complaint fails to state claims upon which relief may be granted, the 25 Court does not have jurisdiction at this stage in the proceedings to grant an injunction. However, 26 if you file an amended complaint that does state a claim under § 1983, you may file a motion for 27 injunctive relief at that time. 28 //// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Clerk of Court shall: 3 a. Randomly assign a District Court Judge to this action, and 4 b. Send Plaintiff a copy of the Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner form used in 5 this district; 6 2. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 7 3. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 8 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 9 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this Court’s order to the 10 Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation issued concurrently 11 herewith; 12 4. Plaintiff’s complaint has been screened and found not to state any claim for relief; and 13 5. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff may file an amended 14 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 15 Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 16 number assigned this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff must file an 17 original and two copies of the amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint in 18 accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 19 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction (ECF No. 6) 20 be DENIED. 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 23 after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 24 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 25 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1] || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 2 | (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || DATED: March 2, 2022 ~ 4 ttt0n— ALLISON CLAIRE 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28