Henson v. Federal Bureau of Narcotics et al
Filing
23
ORDER DENYING 16 Motion for Enforcement of Judgment and 18 Motion to Vacate Sentence signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/15/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ERICK D. HENSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
vs.
1:16-cv-00670-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT AND
MOTION TO VACATE SENTENCE
(ECF Nos. 16, 18.)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS,
et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
19
Erick D. Henson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
20
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
21
commencing this action on May 2, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
22
First Amended Complaint as a matter of course, which awaits the court’s screening under 28
23
U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF No. 17.)
24
On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action
25
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 7.)
26
Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of
27
California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as
28
reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
1
On February 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for enforcement of judgment. (ECF No.
2
16.) On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate his sentence. (ECF No. 18.)
3
Plaintiff’s motions are now before the court.
4
II.
5
6
MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
Plaintiff requests judgment on his Fourth Amendment claim in this case. Plaintiff also
requests a subpoena for production of documents from a third party, Appleby & Company, Inc.
7
Plaintiff’s request for issuance of a subpoena is premature, because discovery has not
8
been opened in this case. Plaintiff may not conduct discovery until after the court has issued a
9
scheduling order opening discovery and setting out pretrial dates for the parties. As a rule, the
10
court issues its scheduling order after the complaint has been served and the defendant has filed
11
an Answer to the complaint. At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s First Amended
12
Complaint awaits the court’s requisite screening process. Therefore, it is not time for discovery
13
and Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena shall be denied as premature.
14
Plaintiff requests the court to expedite the ruling in this case. Plaintiff’s case is not
15
ready for resolution at this stage of the proceedings and preliminary proceedings must be
16
completed before a decision can be made. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on his
17
Fourth Amendment claim shall be denied as premature.
18
III.
MOTION TO VACATE SENTENCE
19
Plaintiff requests the court to vacate his sentence. Such relief is not available in this §
20
1983 case. When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a
21
constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is
22
a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (holding that an injunctive
23
relief action to restore the revocation of good-time credits is not cognizable under § 1983); see
24
also Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011); Simpson v. Thomas, 528 F.3d 685, 692-
25
93 (9th Cir. 2008). In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), the Court held that a state
26
prisoner=s claim for damages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment is not cognizable
27
under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 if a judgment in favor of plaintiff would necessarily imply the
28
///
1
invalidity of his conviction or sentence, unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction
2
or sentence has previously been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.
3
Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongly given a sentence with “a two-year enhancement
4
for a 2010 sentence.” (ECF No. 18 at 2.) Such claim necessarily implies the invalidity of his
5
sentence, and success on the claim would entitle him to an earlier release. Thus, Plaintiff’s
6
only federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate his
7
sentence shall be denied.
8
IV.
9
10
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
11
12
Plaintiff’s motion for enforcement of judgment, filed on February 9, 2017, is
DENIED as premature; and
2.
Plaintiff’s motion to vacate his sentence, filed on March 20, 2017, is DENIED.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 15, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?