Hill v. Marmolejo et al
Filing
7
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed as Barred By Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/27/17: 21-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JOHNATHAN HILL,
10
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
MARMOLEJO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:16-cv-00218-SKO (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED BY
HECK V. HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and
EDWARDS v. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997).
(Doc. 1)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
14
15
16
Plaintiff, Johnathan Hill, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
17
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff complains of having been wrongly
18
charged and found guilty of a Serious Rules Violation Report (“SRVR”) for batter on a police
19
officer. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that he is innocent of this charge and was not given a proper
20
hearing on the charge which amounted to a violation of his right to due process. (Id.) As a result
21
of being found guilty, Plaintiff lost 150 days of good time credit. (Id., at p. 10.)
22
When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a
23
constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a
24
writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874
25
(9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an
26
allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, "a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
27
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
28
invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a
1
1
federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254." Heck v. Humphrey, 512
2
U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). "A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or
3
sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983." Id. at 488. This
4
"favorable termination" requirement has been extended to actions under § 1983 that, if successful,
5
would imply the invalidity of prison administrative decisions which result in a forfeiture of good-
6
time credits. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643–647 (1997).
The Complaint does not contain any allegations to show that Plaintiff's finding of guilt
7
8
under the SRVR has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a writ
9
of habeas corpus.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the date
10
11
of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be
12
dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520
13
U.S. 641, 643-647 (1997). Failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this
14
action, without prejudice.
15
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 27, 2017
/s/
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?