Marquez v. State of California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

Background

Andrew Jerome Marquez, identified as a state prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He proceeded without a lawyer and paid the filing fee.

Marquez alleged that he was unjustly found guilty of a Rules Violation Report because Lieutenant R. Martinez, the Chief Disciplinary Officer who found him guilty, was also the officer who issued the report. Marquez alleged that this violated due process. He requested restoration of privileges and good-time credits, as well as damages.

Court’s analysis

Because the defendant was a governmental entity and the plaintiff was a prisoner, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That law requires screening for claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

The court distinguished between two kinds of prisoner claims. A civil-rights action under § 1983 may challenge the conditions of confinement. A habeas petition, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is the required vehicle for challenging the lawfulness of confinement or matters affecting its duration.

The court concluded that Marquez’s challenge concerned the revocation of good-time credits. If the credits were restored, that would necessarily result in earlier release. Therefore, the court held that the claim had to be brought in a habeas petition rather than under § 1983.

The court also stated that a civil-rights complaint seeking habeas relief should be dismissed without prejudice to filing a new habeas petition. Regarding damages, the court explained that a § 1983 plaintiff seeking damages for an unconstitutional conviction, imprisonment, or deprivation of time credits must first show that the relevant conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a federal habeas ruling.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action without prejudice to filing it as a new habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The clerk was directed to send Marquez two copies of the court’s habeas petition form with the order. The order did not decide whether the disciplinary hearing actually violated due process.