My Ngo v. Tammy Campbell, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied My Ngo’s motion for a preliminary injunction and appointment of counsel. The court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, concluding that Ngo’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims challenging his confinement and the failure to provide a copy of his judgment of conviction were barred and time-barred. The action was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the clerk was directed to close the case.

Holdings

1. A prisoner may not use a § 1983 action to pursue a claim that, even when characterized as a challenge to the procedure for obtaining a judgment of conviction, continues to challenge the legality of the prisoner's conviction or confinement unless the applicable conditions for such a claim are satisfied. Plaintiff's claim remained barred because it asserted that his imprisonment was unlawful.
2. The court found no basis for plaintiff's contention that California Penal Code sections 1207 or 1213 required defendant Campbell to furnish plaintiff with a copy of the judgment of conviction.
3. The claim was barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations because the alleged injury accrued more than twenty years before the action was filed, and the discovery rule did not save the claim.
4. Plaintiff was not entitled to a preliminary injunction because he failed to satisfy the requirements for injunctive relief, and he was not entitled to appointed counsel because he failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's § 1983 claim, notwithstanding its characterization as a challenge to the procedure for obtaining a judgment of conviction, was barred because it effectively challenged the legality of his conviction or confinement.
2. Whether plaintiff's § 1983 claim was barred by California's two-year statute of limitations and whether the discovery rule saved the claim.
3. Whether plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary injunction.
4. Whether plaintiff had shown exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

Disposition

dismissed