Opinion
No. 2:15-cv-0650 CKD P
08-20-2015
LARVESTER J. JOHNSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE FACILITY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented to have all matters in this action before a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. 636(c). On March 27, 2015, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
In his amended complaint, plaintiff asserts that officials at the California Health Care Facility "have punished [plaintiff] for the same crime twice." Plaintiff fails to elaborate except that he suggests defendants' actions have prolonged his stay in prison. In any case, plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and, as plaintiff was informed in the order dismissing his original complaint (ECF No. 4), to the extent he seeks an earlier release date, his sole federal remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). For these reasons, the court will dismiss this action. Considering plaintiff has already been granted leave to amend to cure the deficiencies in his pleadings, granting leave to amend again would be futile.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed; and
2. This case is closed. Dated: August 20, 2015
/s/_________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1
john0659.dis