Hubbard v. Gipson, et al.

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Dismiss Case as Barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and for Failure to State a Claim 14 , 15 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/15/14: The Clerk fo the Court is DIRECTED to close this action. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

Case No. 1:14-cv-00042-AWI-JLT (PC)
ZANE HUBBARD,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.
GIPSON, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION and
DISMISS CASE AS BARRED BY HECK V.
HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) AND FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(Docs. 14, 15)

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff, Zane Hubbard, is a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on January 13, 2014. (Doc. 1.) It was screened and
dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 7.) On March 31, 2014, Plaintiff
filed the First Amended Complaint which was screened and dismissed with leave to amend for

22
failure to state a claim. (Docs. 8, 9.) Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint on June 23,
23
2014. (Doc. 10.)
24
Despite being warned in the order that screened the First Amended Complaint of the
25
26

parameters and application of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994) to actions under
section 1983, Plaintiff persisted to complain of his imprisonment and to seek his release in the

27
28
1

1

Second Amended Complaint.1 On August 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an order giving

2

Plaintiff thirty days to show cause ("OSC") why this action should not be dismissed as barred by

3

Heck v. Humphrey. (Doc. 13.) On September 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed his response which he titled

4

as a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 14.) Thus, on October 17, 2014, the Magistrate Judge

5

reviewed Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and screened the Second Amended Complaint

6

resulting in Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration be denied

7

and that the action be dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey and for failure to state a claim.

8

(Doc. 15.) Plaintiff filed timely objections on October 30, 2014. (Doc. 16.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

9
10

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the

11

Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on October 17, 2014 (Doc. 15), is
adopted in full;

14
15

2. This action is dismissed with prejudice as barred pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512

16

U.S. 477 (1994) and because Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief;
3. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration regarding the order to show cause, filed

17

September 8, 2014 (Doc 14), is denied;

18

4. Dismissal of this action counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

19

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 15, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Second Amended Complaint contains nineteen pages of pleading and one hundred forty-eight pages of
exhibits. (Doc. 10.) Specific factual allegations only make up approximately a page and a half of the nineteen pages
of pleadings. (Id., at 8:24-10:3.)

2