1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE VENABLE, No. 2:24-cv-00133-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ST. ANDRE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought pursuant to 42

. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

(b)(1). The court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend, ECF No. 5, 20 and plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 7. 21 I. Screening Requirement and Standards 22 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 23 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 25 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 26 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 27 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 28 //// 1 This standard is echoed in

(e)(2), which requires that courts dismiss a 2 case in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis at any time if it determines, among other 3 things, that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 4 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” “[The] 5 term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, 6 but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989) 7 (discussing the predecessor to modern § 1915(e)(2), former § 1915(d)). Thus, § 1915(e)(2) 8 allows judges to dismiss a claim based on factual allegations that are clearly baseless, such as 9 facts describing “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-38. 10 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 12 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 13 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 14 Twombly,

(2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson,

(1957)). 15 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 16 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

(2009). 18 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 19 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 20 action.” Twombly,

. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 21 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 22 678. 23 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 24 Twombly,

. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 25 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 26 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 27 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 28 Pardus,

(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 1 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes,

(1974). 2 II. Screening Order 3 Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to discipline when he refused to share a cell with an 4 inmate who came from “off the bus” and was not yet classified. ECF No. 7 at 6. As a result, 5 plaintiff was assessed a forfeiture of 90 days of time credit. Id. at 7. He sues the hearing officer 6 who assessed the credits loss, the correctional officers who issued the rules violation report, an 7 unknown sergeant who refused to speak to him during the attempted housing assignment, and 8 warden St. Andre for failing to adequately train his subordinates. 9 The amended complaint must be dismissed for the same reason as the original complaint. 10 Success on plaintiff’s claim that he was wrongfully disciplined would invalidate the revocation of 11 time credits and therefore shorten plaintiff’s sentence. Accordingly, plaintiff must show that the 12 disciplinary finding has been invalidated (for example, through the granting of a petition for writ 13 of habeas corpus or the prison’s administrative processes) before he can proceed with a § 1983 14 claim. Hebrard v. Nofziger,

(9th Cir. 2024). Plaintiff has not alleged that 15 the disciplinary action has been invalidated, and thus his claims must be dismissed without 16 prejudice; plaintiff may raise these issues in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 17 As the court has already provided plaintiff with an opportunity to allege that the 18 disciplinary action has been invalidated, and the amended complaint includes no such allegation, 19 the court finds that further leave to amend would be futile. Williams v. California,

1002, 1018-19 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court’s finding that the “fact that Plaintiffs have 21 already had two chances to articulate clear and lucid theories underlying their claims, and they 22 failed to do so, demonstrates that amendment would be futile”). 23 III. Order and Recommendation 24 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district judge to 25 this action. It is further RECOMMENDED that the amended complaint be dismissed without 26 prejudice and without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(l). Within fourteen days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 4 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 5 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 6 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 7 | v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 8 9 || Dated: September 18, 2025 Za ?l bbtiz — oe A 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28