1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL BENJAMIN TENORE, Case No. 2:25-cv-0071-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RENEE SIEMSEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff brings this case alleging that defendants violated his due process rights when they 19 denied him parole. ECF No. 1. On May 9, 2025, I screened the complaint and found that it failed 20 to state a cognizable section 1983 claim. ECF No. 10 at 2-3. I dismissed the complaint with 21 leave to amend. Id. at 3. Pending is plaintiff’s objection and request to proceed, ECF No. 17, 22 wherein he argues that my analysis is flawed and that his claim should be allowed to proceed. 23 Specifically, he argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Wilkinson v. Dotson [

(2005)] “expressly found that a challenge to parole procedures was cognizable under §1983 25 without a prior favorable habeas petition.” ECF No. 17 at 3. I disagree, decline to reverse my 26 screening analysis, and direct plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days of this 27 order’s entry. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 28 1 In Wilkinson v. Dotson, the Supreme Court found that section 1983 claims challenging 2 harsher parole guidelines could proceed because success would not necessarily render the 3 prisoners’ sentences invalid, nor would success result in immediate release or an automatically 4 shortened period of confinement.

. Here, plaintiff is not challenging the imposition 5 of new state guidelines; the core claim of his case is that parole officials erred when they credited 6 a “fraudulent” psychological report, ECF No. 1 at 10, and failed to consider his advanced age and 7 health problems, id. at 12, 15. His case is unlike the circumstances described in Wilkinson, 8 because he is not attacking procedures; he is alleging that parole officials incorrectly weighed the 9 evidence in denying him parole. Other courts have found that similar claims cannot proceed 10 under section 1983: 11 Unlike the plaintiffs in Wilkinson, plaintiff here does not seek to invalidate the state parole procedures used to deny him parole; 12 rather, he seeks to invalidate the decision to deny him parole and his subsequent continued incarceration by claiming that defendants 13 prepared and used a fraudulent psychological evaluation in a predetermined decision to deny him parole at his October 2014 14 parole suitability hearing. Put simply, the gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is that defendants wrongly denied him parole on the 15 merits on October 2014 and caused his prolonged and unjust incarceration. 16 17 Colt v. Venard, No. 15-cv-4688-SK (PR),

, *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 18 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). And, after Wilkinson was decided, the Supreme Court 19 has emphasized that it is not the role of federal courts to substantively review state parole denials. 20 See Swarthout v. Cooke,

, 220 (2011) (holding that, under federal law, a prisoner 21 subject to a state parole decision is entitled only to an opportunity to be heard and a state of 22 reasons for why parole was denied). Plaintiff’s claims that parole officials considered an 23 erroneous report and failed to consider his age or medical status invites exactly the sort of 24 analysis that Swarthout forbids. 25 I am skeptical that plaintiff will be able to save his claim by way of amendment, but I will, 26 again, offer him the opportunity. 27 It is ORDERED that: 28 1. Plaintiff’s objection and request to proceed, ECF No. 17, is DENIED. 1 2. Plaintiff may, within thirty days of this order’s entry, file an amended complaint. If he 2 | fails to do so, I will recommend this action be dismissed. 3 3. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ December 8, 2025 q———_ 7 JEREMY D. PETERSON 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28