Hill v. Marmolejo et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING Case Since Barred By HECK v. HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and EDWARDS v. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/6/17: This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JOHNATHAN HILL,
Plaintiff,

10
v.

11
12

Case No. 1:16-cv-00218-SKO (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE SINCE BARRED BY
HECK V. HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and
EDWARDS v. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997)

MARMOLEJO, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

Plaintiff, Johnathan Hill, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

16

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he
17

was wrongly charged and found guilty of a Serious Rules Violation Report (“SRVR”) for battery

18
on a police officer. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff contends that he is innocent of this charge and was not
19
given a proper hearing on the charge, which amounted to a violation of his right to due process.
20
(Id.) As a result of having been found guilty, Plaintiff lost 150 days of good time credit. (Id., at
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

p. 10.)
Since it appeared that this action is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), an
order issued giving Plaintiff twenty-one (21) days to show cause why this action should not be
dismissed without prejudice. It is now more than two months since the order to show cause
issued and Plaintiff has not responded to it in any way.
As stated in the order to show cause, 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

28
1

1

sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young

2

v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when

3

seeking damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff

4

must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by

5

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

6

called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”

7

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim for damages bearing that relationship

8

to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id.

9

at 488. This “favorable termination” requirement has been extended to actions under § 1983 that,

10

if successful, would imply the invalidity of prison administrative decisions which result in a

11

forfeiture of good-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

12
13

under the SRVR has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a writ

14

of habeas corpus. Accordingly, pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and

15
16

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643-647 (1997), Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 and this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 6, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.