Kinder v. Cortez et al

Filing 19

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION With Prejudice Since Barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and ORDER Directing Clerk to Close Case signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/4/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY LEE KINDER, Jr., 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 CORTEZ, et al., 15 Case No. 1:16-cv-01764-JLT ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE SINCE BARRED BY HECK v. HUMPHREY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (Docs. 1) Defendants. 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE CASE 17 18 Plaintiff complains of having been wrongly celled with a with a Hispanic “Northanio” 19 drop-out gang member, Ernie Cortez, at the Merced Sandymush County Jail. Plaintiff alleges that 20 he was in protective housing because his jaw was healing after being wired shut from a prior 21 altercation with another such inmate, who jumped Plaintiff and broke his jaw. When Cortez was 22 placed in the cell with Plaintiff, they spoke and Cortez showed Plaintiff his paperwork which 23 proved that Cortez was not a general population inmate like Plaintiff. “Due to politics and rules,” 24 Plaintiff fought Cortez. 25 Plaintiff alleges that, in retaliation, he was charged with sodomy. The sodomy charge 26 caused Plaintiff not to be charged with petty theft for which he was arrested, but with “2nd-hand 27 robbery instead” which gave him a strike and a “G.B.I.” enhancement on a four-year sentence and 28 does not match the police report under which Plaintiff was charged and being held. Plaintiff also 1 1 alleges that his public defender did not provide him copies of Plaintiff’s police report and sent 2 Plaintiff to Napa State Hospital saying that Plaintiff was not competent for court. The sodomy 3 charge pushed Plaintiff’s court date further off. Among other things, Plaintiff requests that the 4 strike on his commitment charge be removed and that he be resentenced. 5 Notably, Plaintiff was found to have committed the rules violation prohibiting sodomy. 6 However, he has not demonstrated that his commitment charge or the enhancements have been 7 reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a writ of habeas corpus. Thus the 8 Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 9 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff filed a response in which he reiterates most of the 10 allegations in his Complaint, but continues to fail to show that his increased commitment charge 11 and enhancements have been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or questioned by a writ of habeas 12 corpus. 13 As stated in the OSC, when a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, 14 or raises a constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal 15 remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 16 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking 17 damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff must 18 prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive 19 order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into 20 question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. 21 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). Since Plaintiff fails to provide any basis to find that his 22 increased commitment charge and enhancements have been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or 23 questioned by a writ of habeas corpus, he is barred from pursuing his claims under § 1983 at this 24 time. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 2 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 4, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?