Moore v. Cook, et al.

Filing 10

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Dismiss Case as Barred by Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/8/17. Objections to F&R Due Within Twenty-One Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EZELL MOORE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:16-cv-01033-LJO-JLT (PC)

v.
PHILLIP COOK, et al.,

15

Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS CASE AS BARRED BY
HECK V. HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)
(Docs. 1, 9)
21-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

I.

Findings
Plaintiff contends he suffered a wrongful arrest by defendant Ruiz on June 28, 2017 after

18
19

defendant Cook harassed him and his family. (Doc. 1.) In essence, he claims his arrest was

20

without probable cause because he claims, “Officer H. Ruiz incarceration of me off statement of

21

he say she say. Officer Ruiz had no other reason to put me in jail on 6-28-16.” (Id. at 3.)

22

Notably, on September 16, 2016, pleaded no contest to a violation of California Penal Code

23

section 148(A)(1) (resisting arrest) and a violation of California Penal Code section 245(A)(4)

24

(assault on a person causing great bodily injury) stemming from his arrest on June 28, 2016.1 As

25
1

26
27
28

The court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333
(9th Cir. 1993). The record of state court proceeding is a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned,
and the Court make take judicial notice of court records. Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9
(9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th
Cir.); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing

1

1

a result, the plaintiff was sentenced to four years in prison. Thus, on February 22, 2017, the Court

2

ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as barred by Heck v.

3

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). (Doc. 9.) Despite lapse of nearly three months,

4

Plaintiff did not file any response to that order.2
When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a

5
6

constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a

7

writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874

8

(9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an

9

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, "a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the

10

conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared

11

invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a

12

federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254." Heck v. Humphrey, 512

13

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

14

sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983." Id. at 488. This

15
16
17

"favorable termination" requirement has been extended to actions under § 1983 that, if successful,
would imply the invalidity of prison administrative decisions which result in a forfeiture of goodtime credits. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643–647 (1997).
The Complaint does not contain any allegations to show that Plaintiff's conviction has

18
19
20

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

Plaintiff’s claims challenge his arrest, conviction, and sentence, which may be brought

21
22
23

Conclusion & Recommendations

only in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state any claims that are
cognizable under section 1983 until the actions he complains of have been reversed, expunged,
declared invalid, or called into question by a writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff need not be given

24
25
26
27
28

Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th. Cir. 1980). Thus, the Court takes judicial notice of the court record in Kern
County Superior Court case, People v. Ezell Moore, case number BF164651A.
2

The docket shows that the OSC was returned as undeliverable “Not in Custody” on March 6, 2017. Plaintiff was
informed of his duty as a pro se litigant, he has a duty to notify the Clerk of the Court of any change of his address.
(Doc. 3.) Thus, it appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action.

2

1

leave to amend as these deficiencies are not capable of being cured through amendment. Akhtar v.

2

Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012).

3
4
5

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Complaint (Doc. 1) be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

6

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 21

7

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

8

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s

9

Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

10

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

11

839 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 8, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3