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)

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

.