Simpson v. Ahlin

Filing 7

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed as Barred by Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/3/2017. Show Cause Response due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
EARL SIMPSON,

Case No. 1:16-cv-00373-SKO (PC)

10
Plaintiff,
11
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED BY
HECK V. HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)

12
AHLIN,

(Doc. 1)

13
Defendant.

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

14
15
16

Plaintiff, Earl Simpson, is a civil detainee who is currently proceeding pro se and in forma

17

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends he has served

18

a twenty year sentence, but instead of being released on parole, he has been detained in a

19

California State Hospital. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff requests a finding that his due process rights have

20

been violated and that he be released from state custody. (Id.) It appears that Plaintiff may have

21

intended to pursue habeas corpus relief, rather than an action under §1983.

22

When a person in custody 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, imprisonment, or confinement, “a § 1983 plaintiff must

27

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

28

order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into
1

1

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

2

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). "A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a

3

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

4

488.
The Complaint does not contain any allegations to show that Plaintiff's detention order has

5
6

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

7

appears that Plaintiff's intent in filing this action is for habeas corpus relief rather than to pursue

8

claims under § 1983.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the date

9
10

of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be

11

dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The failure to respond to this

12

order will result in dismissal of this action, without prejudice.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:

16

January 3, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.