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)

Download PDF
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 .

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?