Stringer v. Cruz

Background

Lawrence T. Stringer, then an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the screening requirement for prisoner lawsuits seeking relief from government entities or employees.

Stringer alleged that he was eligible for consideration under California’s nonviolent parole process, but the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of Parole Hearings, a counselor, a records analyst, and an appeals coordinator waited too long to review his file. He alleged that the delay made him no longer eligible for parole consideration and violated his rights to due process and equal protection. He sought money damages.

Documents attached to the complaint showed that Stringer had initially been approved for release through the nonviolent parole process on January 10, 2018. That decision was later vacated because the decisionmaker had not adequately considered the violent nature of two rule-violation reports. At a January 30, 2018 proceeding, Stringer was denied release, and that decision was upheld on March 19, 2018. The opinion states that he filed unsuccessful state habeas petitions in the Sacramento County Superior Court and the California Court of Appeal, but it does not state the outcome of his petition to the California Supreme Court.

Court’s Analysis

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state law. The court said Stringer’s complaint did not meet that standard because it asserted, without supporting facts, that his due-process and equal-protection rights had been violated.

For a due-process claim, an amended complaint would need to allege facts showing the loss of a federally protected liberty interest without adequate procedural protections. The court explained that merely failing to follow state law does not itself establish a federal due-process violation. For an equal-protection claim, Stringer would need to allege facts suggesting that the defendants acted with discriminatory purpose and discriminatory effect based on membership in a protected class.

The court also explained that § 1983 is not the proper vehicle for challenging the duration of confinement. If Stringer remained in custody and sought immediate or faster release, the appropriate federal remedy would be a petition asking for release from custody. In addition, the court stated that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Board of Parole Hearings are arms of the State of California and are protected by the Eleventh Amendment from the lawsuit. Claims against individual defendants would have to identify each person and explain what that person did or failed to do.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Stringer was required to file a complete amended complaint by October 25, 2019, using the caption and civil case number in the order and marking the first page “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The court stated that failure to meet the deadline would result in dismissal of the action. The court also granted Stringer’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee at the outset.