1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GAMALIEL ELIZALDE, Case No. 25-cv-02683-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 CONTRA COSTA ADULT SCHOOL PROGRAM, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Gamaliel Elizalde alleges that an adult school teacher deprived him of 15 academic credits he had earned, thereby adversely affecting his parole suitability in which 16 he has a protected due process interest. His

complaint containing these 17 allegations is now before me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 18 This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief. 19 Even if there were a cause of action for unlawful interference with parole suitability, no 20 claim would lie on the facts presented here. Elizalde admits that the deprived credits were 21 restored. Also, a claim that the teacher interfered with his liberty interest in parole is too 22 speculative. He is not eligible for parole until 2028 or 2029 and parole decisions are based 23 on many factors, with the completion of school courses being only one such factor. 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Standard of Review 26 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 27 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 1 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 2 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 3 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 4 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1988). 5 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 6 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) 7 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). “A claim has facial 8 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 9 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

(quoting 10 Twombly,

). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 11 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 12 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network,

, 754–55 13 (9th Cir. 1994). 14 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential 15 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 16 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 17 color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

(1988). 18 B. Legal Claims 19 Elizalde alleges that in 2023 he took classes at the Martinez Detention Facility with 20 Eve, a teacher employed by the Contra Costa Adult School Program, to increase his parole 21 suitability. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 3-4.) He alleges that Eve took away or failed to give 22 him the academic credits he earned through his coursework. (Id. at 9-11.) However, he 23 admits that those same credits were later restored. (Id. at 11-12.) Elizalde states that his 24 next parole eligibility hearing will not be held until 2028 or 2029. (Id. at 3.) 25 Elizalde’s allegations that Eve unlawfully interfered with his due process right to 26 parole fail to state a claim for relief. Even if such a claim were cognizable, there was no 27 interference. The restoration of his academic credits defeats any such claim, especially 1 || will occur in 2028 or 2029. Furthermore, even the temporary deprivation of credits cannot 2 || state aclaim. Parole decisions are based on many factors, which renders as speculative 3 || any assertion that Eve’s actions adversely affected his parole eligibility. Nettles v. 4 || Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). 5 CONCLUSION 6 This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief. 7 || The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 9 Dated: June 27, 2025 \f CE ® 10 7d ILLIAM H. ORRICK 11 United States District Judge qa 12

41

© 15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28