Summary
This Order and Report and Recommendation addresses a pro se prisoner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and screens his amended complaint alleging constitutional violations related to his parole revocation. The court grants the in forma pauperis application and applies the Heck bar to recommend dismissal of several claims without prejudice, as they would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement. Claim three is dismissed with leave to amend, and the plaintiff is instructed to file a complete Second Amended Complaint by June 13, 2025.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether claims 1,2,4,5 are barred by the Heck doctrine.
- Whether claim 3 fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.
Holdings
- Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are dismissed without prejudice because they are barred by the Heck doctrine.
- Claim 3 is dismissed with leave to amend.
- The application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
- The first application is denied as moot.
Key quotations
“The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”” (-)
“Section 1983 creates a cause of action against a “person who, under color of any [state law], subjects, or causes to be subjected, any [person] to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”” (-)
Factual background
Brit F. Augborne, a Nevada state‑prison inmate, was paroled on April 15, 2024 and re‑arrested on July 25, 2024 without a warrant or due process. He alleges that parole officers prepared false reports and that the Parole Board improperly revoked his parole, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed an initial application to proceed in forma pauperis on February 24, 2025, which was later denied as moot. A second application was filed and is the subject of this order. The court also screened the plaintiff’s amended complaint for viable §1983 claims.
Remand instructions
If Plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, he must do so by June 13, 2025; failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case.