Edward Ronje v. King et al

Filing 8

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed as Barred By Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/29/14: 30-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDWARD RONJE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
KING, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:14-cv-01589-LJO-JLT (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS
BARRED BY HECK V. HUMPHRY, 512 U.S.
477 (1994)
(Doc. 1)

Defendants.

30-DAY DEADLINE

16
Plaintiff, Edward Ronje, is a civil detainee who is currently proceeding pro se and in

17
18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this action, Plaintiff

19

complains that the 2009 standardized assessment protocol, under which he was found to be a

20

sexually violent predator, was illegally enacted and violates section 6601 of the California

21

Welfare and Institutions Code, and that he identified the error before the probable cause

22

determination. Plaintiff requests, among other things, judgment declaring that his due process

23

rights were violated and that injunctions issue prohibiting the defendants and their agents from

24

arguing that Plaintiff is a dangerous sex offender who requires indeterminate commitment and

25

from applying a diagnosis of pedophilia as a justification for the imprisonment Plaintiff has

26

endured.1 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against the Defendants.

27

1

28

Based upon these allegations, it appears that Plaintiff may have intended to pursue habeas corpus relief, rather than
an action under §1983. Notably, when a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a
constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas

1

When seeking damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a §

1
2

1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,

3

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such

4

determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28

5

U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim for damages bearing

6

that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable

7

under § 1983.” Id. at 488.

8

The Complaint does not contain any allegations to show that Plaintiff's conviction has

9

been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a writ of habeas corpus.

10

However, he seeks monetary damages from each of the named defendants.2 (Doc. 1 at 35)

11

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within 30-days from the date of service of

12

this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed as barred

13

by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

14
15

The failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action, without
prejudice.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

18

December 29, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11
S.Ct. 1090 (1991).
2

Notably, Plaintiff’s complaint seeks to impose liability on the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District for denying
his appeal. However, judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity for acts taken within their judicial role Forrester v.
White, 484 U.S. 219, 226 (1988).

2