Hodge v. Garza, et al

Filing 11

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Dismiss Case as Barred by Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), re 1 , 10 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/10/16. 21-Day Objection Deadline. Referred to Judge Drozd. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:16-cv-00001-DAD-JLT (PC)

GARY HODGE,

v.
GARZA, et al.,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS CASE AS BARRED BY HECK V.
HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and
EDWARDS v. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997).
(Docs. 1, 10)

Defendants.

21 DAY DEADLINE

16
17

After reviewing the complaint in this action, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause

18

why this action should not be dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88

19

(1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 512 U.S. 641 (1997). (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff did not respond.

20

Plaintiff’s allegations complain that prison officials wrongly found him guilty of a serious

21

rules violation alleging he possessed a cell phone, though he claimed it was not his. (Doc. 1.)

22

Plaintiff alleges that he is completely innocent of this charge and that he was not allowed to

23

introduce exculpatory evidence, including his cell-mate’s admission that he owned the cell phone.

24

He claims that the defendants refused to reverse the guilty finding against him and that this

25

extended his release date. He seeks an order reversing all punitive effects of the finding.

26

When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a

27

constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a

28

writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874
1

1

(9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an

2

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, "a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the

3

conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared

4

invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a

5

federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254." Heck v. Humphrey, 512

6

U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). "A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or

7

sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983." Id. at 488. This

8

"favorable termination" requirement has been extended to actions under § 1983 that, if successful,

9

would imply the invalidity of prison administrative decisions which result in a forfeiture of good-

10
11

time credits. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643–647 (1997).
Plaintiff admits that the guilty finding has not been addressed by an appeal or through a

12

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Thus, the action must be dismissed. Moreover, because these

13

deficiencies are not capable of being cured through amendment, the Court does not recommend

14

leave to amend. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012).

15

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS:

16

1.

17

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED.

18

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 21

19

days, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned

20

AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that

21

failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

22

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923

23

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 10, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2