Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
GOMEZ v. WOODFORD
October 14, 2005.
JEFFREY KEVIN GOMEZ, Plaintiff,
JEANNE S. WOODFORED, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
Plaintiff Keith Candler, a California prisoner proceeding pro
se, filed the above-titled civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges he was disciplined by prison
officials for violating prison rules, in a manner that violated
his constitutional rights; he further alleges that part of his
punishment for the violation was the loss of 360 days of good
time credits. He seeks restoration of those credits.
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).
Here, plaintiff challenges the validity of a decision by prison
officials that he was guilty of violating a prison rule, which decision resulted in his
loss of good time credits. The Supreme Court has consistently
held that any claim by a prisoner attacking the fact or duration
of his confinement must be brought by way of a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740,
747 (1998); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997);
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). In particular,
a prisoner must file a habeas petition if the nature of his claim
is such that it may result in his entitlement to an earlier
release, such as a claim for violation of rights in connection
with the loss of good time credits. See Young v. Kenny,
907 F.2d 874, 876-78 (9th Cir. 1990). A civil rights complaint
seeking habeas relief is subject to dismissal without prejudice
to the prisoner's bringing his claim in a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,
49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, the instant complaint is DISMISSED, without
prejudice to plaintiff's refiling his claims in a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus after he has exhausted those claims in the
state courts. In light of the dismissal, the application to
proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. No fee is due.
This order terminates Docket No. 2.
The Clerk shall close the file.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For