Opinion
No. C 03-4410 MMC (PR), (Docket No. 2)
November 4, 2003
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Reggie Jones, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he was taken into custody following the revocation of his parole by defendants, all officials of the Board of Prison Terms. According to plaintiff, defendants, at his parole-revocation hearing, violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the United States Constitution. He seeks money damages.
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id § 1915A(b)(1), (2).Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed.See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or term of imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff alleging a violation of § 1983 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). A claim for damages based upon a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.See id. at 487. Under the rationale of Heck v. Humphrey, a plaintiff cannot challenge the validity of confinement resulting from a parole-revocation hearing if he does not allege that the parole board's decision has been reversed, expunged, set aside or called into question. See Littles v. Bd. of Pardons and Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995): see also McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding § 1983 action challenging revocation of supervised release barred under Heck). Plaintiff claims that his parole-revocation hearing and consequent incarceration are invalid because of the violation of his constitutional rights and rights provided by the ADA. If successful, his claims would call into question the revocation of his parole and his current confinement. Accordingly, this action is barred until the parole board's decision has been reversed, expunged, set aside or otherwise called into question.
In light of this dismissal, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and no filing fee is due.
All pending motions are terminated and the Clerk shall close the file.