Daniels v. Ledger

Filing 7

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/30/17. Show Cause Response due by (21-Day Deadline). (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 L.M. DANIELS, II, Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 LEDGER, et al., 13 Case No. 1:16-cv-00377-SKO (PC) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED BY HECK V. HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (Doc. 1) Defendants. 21-DAY DEADLINE 14 15 16 Plaintiff, L.M. Daniels, II, is in custody at the Fresno County Jail, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff complains that 17 he was wrongly found in violation of parole and thereafter taken into custody. 18 When an inmate challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a 19 constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a 20 writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, "a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). "A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983." Id. at 488. 28 1 1 The Complaint does not contain any allegations to show that Plaintiff's finding of parole 2 violation has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a writ of 3 habeas corpus. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the date 4 5 of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be 6 dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Failure to respond to this 7 order will result in dismissal of this action, without prejudice. 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 30, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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?