From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Iseli v. California

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 18, 2022
2:22-CV-1933-WBS-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-CV-1933-WBS-DMC-P

11-18-2022

BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DENNIS M. COTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's original complaint, ECF No. 1.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague and conclusory.

Plaintiff names the State of California and City of Stockton as defendants. See ECF No. 1, pg. 2. Plaintiff states that his claims concern a “false conviction.” See id. at 3, 4. Throughout the complaint, Plaintiff references another action pending in the Eastern District of California, Iseli v. People of the State of California, 2:22-CV-1483-TLN-EFB, which is a habeas corpus petition challenging Plaintiff's 2019 murder conviction in the San Juaquin County Superior Court. The current civil rights action adds little and consists largely of Plaintiff's references to his federal habeas case and statement “all of the above.”

When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the prisoner's sole federal remedy is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Thus, where a § 1983 action seeking monetary damages or declaratory relief alleges constitutional violations which would necessarily imply the invalidity of the prisoner's underlying conviction or sentence, or the result of a prison disciplinary hearing resulting in imposition of a sanction affecting the overall length of confinement, such a claim is not cognizable under § 1983 unless the conviction or sentence has first been invalidated on appeal, by habeas petition, or through some similar proceeding. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 48384 (1994) (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations were akin to malicious prosecution action which includes as an element a finding that the criminal proceeding was concluded in plaintiff's favor); Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 1997) (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations of procedural defects were an attempt to challenge substantive result in parole hearing); cf. Neal, 131 F.3d at 824 (concluding that § 1983 claim was cognizable because challenge was to conditions for parole eligibility and not to any particular parole determination); cf. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (concluding that § 1983 action seeking changes in procedures for determining when an inmate is eligible for parole consideration not barred because changed procedures would hasten future parole consideration and not affect any earlier parole determination under the prior procedures).

Here, the Court finds that the current civil rights action is Heck-barred. Specifically, Plaintiff's allegation that he suffered a “false conviction,” coupled with his references to an ongoing federal habeas petition challenging a state court conviction, indicates that the current action challenges that conviction. Success on the merits of this challenge, i.e., a finding that the conviction was indeed “false,” would necessarily imply the invalidity of the state court conviction. Further, given the pending federal habeas petition, it is clear the state court conviction has not been set aside or invalidated. Because Plaintiff has not obtained favorable termination of his state court conviction, he may not proceed here with civil rights claims arising from the state court criminal proceedings.

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).


Summaries of

Iseli v. California

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 18, 2022
2:22-CV-1933-WBS-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2022)
Case details for

Iseli v. California

Case Details

Full title:BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 18, 2022

Citations

2:22-CV-1933-WBS-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2022)