Opinion
No. C 02-3532 MMC (PR)
September 4, 2002
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated in a California state prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims that prison officials violated his right to due process by imposing a penalty in the form of good time credits following a disciplinary hearing held in contravention of prison policy. Plaintiff seeks money damages.
Plaintiff indicates that he was released from prison in 2001; apparently, he has returned to prison.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that he was charged with violating prison rules in connection with an incident in April 2000. After prison officials referred the matter to the Del Norte County District Attorney's Office, officials granted his request that his prison discipline hearing be postponed until after any criminal charges were resolved. On February 13, 2001, the District Attorney notified prison officials that they would not be pursuing criminal charges against plaintiff. On March 21, 2001, plaintiff rescinded the request for postponement of the disciplinary hearing, and the hearing was held on March 25, 2001. Prison officials found plaintiff guilty of violating prison rules and imposed a penalty of ninety days loss of good time credit.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 191 5A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
B. Legal Claims
Plaintiff claims that the discipline he received was improper because prison policy required prison officials to conduct any disciplinary hearing against him within thirty days of receipt of notice from the District Attorney that charges were not being pursued. Plaintiff claims that the failure to conduct the hearing within that time period violated his right to due process because the resulting disciplinary action postponed his release from prison in that he lost ninety days of good time credits.
Plaintiffs claims for damages for the allegedly improper discipline and loss of good time credits must be dismissed under the rationale of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court held that in order to state a claim for damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). Heck's rationale bars a claim for damages for harm caused by the unconstitutional deprivation of good time credits because such a claim necessarily calls into question the lawfulness of the plaintiffs continued confinement, i.e., it implicates the duration of the plaintiffs sentence. See Sheldon v. Hundley, 83 F.3d 231, 233 (8th Cir. 1996). Although plaintiff does not seek the restoration of his credits in this action, he challenges the constitutionality of the disciplinary action taken against him. If proven, this claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of the disciplinary action and the resulting forfeiture of good time credits. Consequently, plaintiff may not bring a civil rights action based on the discipline or the disciplinary proceedings unless and until the time credit forfeiture is reversed or otherwise invalidated. Accordingly, plaintiffs claims must be dismissed without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and the instant complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
All pending motions are terminated and the clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.