United States District Court, E.D. California
LAWRENCE T. STRINGER, Plaintiff,
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
filed this action while a state prisoner at Ironwood State
Prison, under the authority of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), challenging the
failure of CDCR officials to apply the provisions of
Proposition 57 to reduce his sentence. It appears that
plaintiff is no longer incarcerated under the authority of
CDCR. The court nevertheless addresses the
substance of his complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, and his request for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. For the
reasons that follow, the court grants plaintiff's request
to proceed in forma pauperis but recommends that his
complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.
In Forma Pauperis Application
has submitted an affidavit and prison trust account statement
that make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
See ECF Nos. 2, 5. Accordingly, plaintiff's
request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
must nevertheless pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for
this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By
this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial
filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct
the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing
fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the
Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated
to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding
month's income credited to plaintiff's trust account.
These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to
the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in
plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee
is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Screening of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
Legal Standards for Screening Prisoner Civil Rights
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 fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks
an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v.
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984).
document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally
construed,' and ‘a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (internal
quotation marks omitted)). See also Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(e) (“Pleadings shall be so construed as to do
justice.”). Additionally, a pro se litigant is entitled
to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an
opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies
cannot be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson,
809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).
legal claims of “equality [of] rights, false
imprisonment, mental abuse, obstruction of justice, [and]
conduct that shocks the general conscience or is intolerable
in fundamental fairness, ” the complaint alleges that
plaintiff received inconsistent responses from various CDCR
officials and employees concerning the application of
Proposition 57 to his sentence. Plaintiff alleges that
officials have failed to address the impact of Proposition 57
on his sentencing credits and parole eligibility, causing him
significant mental distress, loss of hair and eczema, and
postponed his song writing career. See ECF No. 1 at
1-5. Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, “500 dollars for
every counselor that [k]new I was eligible and didn't
tell me for each extra day I spent in prison.”
Id. at 6.
to the complaint is a copy of a letter, dated December 27,
2016, from a Deputy Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior
Court, informing plaintiff that the “functions and
responsibilities under Proposition ...