1:18-cv-00017
E.D. Cal.May 7, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Dominique Baker, a state prisoner, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint challenging his 2011 felony battery charge, conviction, and consecutive sentence of 25 years to life.
- Baker alleges the underlying incident involved only a wrist grab, no injury, and claims he should not have been charged or prosecuted.
- Defendants named are Deputy District Attorney Dustin (Justin) Hughson and Associate Warden Suzan Hubbard.
- The matter is before the magistrate judge for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; dismissal is required if a complaint fails to state a claim.
- The magistrate concluded Baker’s claims, which challenge the validity and duration of his conviction and sentence, fall within habeas corpus territory and therefore are not cognizable in a § 1983 action.
- Amendment was denied as futile; recommendation: dismiss without prejudice to filing a habeas petition in the proper district.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baker may pursue a § 1983 claim attacking his conviction/sentence | Baker contends he was wrongfully charged/prosecuted and convicted for conduct (a wrist grab) that did not warrant the felony and long sentence | Implicit defense: § 1983 is not the proper vehicle to challenge legality or duration of a conviction/sentence | Dismissed: Claims attack conviction/duration and must be pursued by habeas (§ 2254); § 1983 is not proper here |
| Whether the complaint survives screening under § 1915A and Rule 8/Iqbal-Twombly plausibility standards | Baker alleges insufficient evidence and wrongful prosecution | Court: claims necessarily challenge conviction and thus are not cognizable under § 1983; also pleadings must be plausible and show personal participation | Complaint fails screening and is dismissed without leave to amend as amendment would be futile |
| Proper venue for habeas challenge | Baker did not plead a habeas petition or assert proper venue | N/A (court advises proper venue rules) | Court advises habeas must be filed in district with sentencing court (or as provided under § 2241(d)) |
| Whether dismissal should be without prejudice | Baker seeks relief but used wrong procedural vehicle | N/A | Dismissal without prejudice to filing a habeas petition; leave to amend under § 1983 denied as futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleadings must contain factual allegations showing plausible claim, not merely conclusory statements)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead enough facts to state a plausible claim)
- Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff must allege each defendant’s personal participation in alleged deprivation)
- Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)
- Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) (plausibility standard requires sufficient factual detail to infer liability)
- Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (distinguishes habeas and § 1983 remedies for prisoner complaints)
- Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (defines the core habeas corpus claims challenging fact or duration of confinement)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011) (distinguishes claims that necessarily imply speedier release from those that do not)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (§ 1983 relief barred where success would necessarily imply immediate release; such claims belong in habeas)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (pro se plaintiffs generally given leave to amend; exceptions for futility)
- Schmier v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2002) (futility of amendment is a valid basis to deny leave to amend)
- Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 1995) (civil rights complaints that seek habeas relief should be dismissed without prejudice to habeas filing)
- Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (procedural rules on objections to magistrate findings; failure to timely object may waive appellate rights)
- Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to timely object to magistrate findings can result in waiver)