Harris v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-06749
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Harris v. CDCR, Judge Donato dismissed Vernon Lenard Harris’s amended civil-rights complaint without prejudice because his requested relief belonged in a habeas petition.
Vernon Lenard Harris’s amended civil-rights complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed. The ruling leaves open the possibility of a later damages action if he successfully overturns the disciplinary finding.
What happened
In Harris v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Vernon Lenard Harris, a state prisoner representing himself, alleged that officials violated his rights after an eye dropper containing drugs was seized and he was found guilty at a prison disciplinary hearing. He sought money damages and restoration of 150 days of lost time credits.
The court explained that a challenge seeking restoration of time credits must be brought in a petition challenging the legality or duration of confinement, rather than a civil-rights lawsuit. Harris had been given a chance to amend his complaint and address whether the disciplinary finding had been overturned, but the amended complaint did not do so.
Judge Donato dismissed the complaint without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case. The court stated that Harris may seek money damages after successfully overturning the disciplinary finding.
The detailed version
- Harris v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · No. 3:21-cv-06749
- James Donato
- Jan. 5, 2022
Background
Vernon Lenard Harris, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and Harris filed an amended complaint.
Harris alleged that his rights were violated when an eye dropper containing drugs was seized from a room he shared with other inmates and during a later prison disciplinary hearing. He alleged that he was found guilty at that hearing and assessed 150 days’ loss of time credits. He sought money damages and restoration of those credits.
Court’s Analysis
The court conducted the preliminary screening required for prisoner complaints seeking relief from a governmental entity or government employee. Under that screening standard, the court must identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.
The court distinguished between civil-rights claims and petitions challenging the legality or duration of imprisonment. A civil-rights action may challenge the conditions of confinement, but a prisoner must use a petition for a writ of habeas corpus when the requested relief would necessarily result in a speedier release. The court also explained that a civil-rights plaintiff seeking damages for an allegedly unlawful conviction or imprisonment must show that the conviction or sentence was reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or invalidated through a federal habeas decision. This is known as the favorable-termination requirement.
Because restoring Harris’s lost time credits would necessarily affect the duration of his confinement, the court said his challenge to the disciplinary finding belonged in a habeas petition rather than a § 1983 action. Harris had been given an opportunity to amend the complaint and state whether the loss of credits had already been reversed or expunged, but the amended complaint did not address those issues.
Disposition
Judge Donato ordered that the complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk was requested to close the case. The court stated that Harris may seek money damages after he successfully overturns the disciplinary finding.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.