United States District Court, N.D. California, Eureka Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge.
a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court dismissed the original
complaint with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed an
amended complaint. (Docs. 9, 11.)
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). In its review the court must identify any
cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2).
Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri
v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not
necessary; the statement need only “‘give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.'”” Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted).
Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does
not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds'
of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A
complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.
at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently
explained the “plausible on its face” standard of
Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide
the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by
factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement
to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
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 deprivation was committed by a
person acting under the color of state law. West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
challenges certain conditions of his parole.
order to recover 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 42 U.S.C. § 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. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that
relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so
invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id.
challenge to a portion of the discretionary parole conditions
imposed by the CDCR or parole authority may be pursued in a
§ 1983 action if success on the claim would not imply
the invalidity of the plaintiff's conviction or state
court sentence. See Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834,
841 (9th Cir. 2014). “Not all parole conditions are
essential to the ‘fact' of a parolee's
confinement; and a parolee's challenge to parole terms
that are more analogous to ‘conditions' in the
prison context will not speed the parolee's release from
parole.” Id. at 845.
states that he was released from CDCR custody in July 2016
but the Santa Cruz Probation Department added terms of his
parole that he take all medication prescribed by a doctor.
Plaintiff seeks to have this term of parole removed. When the
court reviewed the original complaint, plaintiff was in
custody at the Santa Cruz County Jail. It was unclear if he
was in custody for violating the terms of parole or for a
plaintiff was challenging the terms of parole and he was not
incarcerated due to the underlying conviction and violating
parole then a § 1983 action may be appropriate. If
plaintiff was in custody due to violating these parole
conditions, then a finding that the conditions were unlawful
would undermine the validity of plaintiff's parole
violation jail sentence and he would not be allowed proceed
with a § 1983 action. See Heck, 512 U.S. at
487. In that instance plaintiff would need to file a habeas
petition after exhausting state court remedies. The complaint
was dismissed with leave to amend for plaintiff to provide
more information concerning why he was incarcerated and if
his underlying conviction and terms of parole were related to
his current placement in county jail.
has filed an amended complaint but has failed to address the
deficiencies outlined in the prior court order. Plaintiff
states he was incarcerated when he filed the prior complaint,
but was released on February 9, 2017, but was incarcerated
again on April 5, 2017, and is still incarcerated. It is
still not clear if plaintiff is in custody due to violating
the terms of parole that he challenges in this action. If he
is in custody for violating ...