United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL
OF ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1]
Rene Courts is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint, filed March 3,
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 “fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . .
.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of his rights.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo
County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled
to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is
now higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121
(9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive
screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible,
which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court
to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79;
Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts
that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's
liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
names the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California, as the sole Defendant.
first claim, Plaintiff states “found watches on the
ground not me on video[, ]” and references absconding
and probation/parole. In the second claim, Plaintiff states
“[F]ifth Amendment my right is not to say anything
because might be incriminated[, ]” and references the
claim as criminal. In the third claim, Plaintiff references
absconding and a parole warrant hold.
relief, Plaintiff requests modification of disposition.
habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner
to challenge the “legality or duration” of his
confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th
Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper
method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that
confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136,
141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499;
Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to
Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
“[R]elief is available to a prisoner under the federal
habeas statute … if success on the claim would
‘necessarily spell speedier release' from custody,
which . . . include termination ...