Sprinkle v. Robinson, et al
Filing
157
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/7/2014. The 8/6/2014 154 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS are NOT ADOPTED at this time. This matter is REFERRED back to Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan for further proceedings. (Marciel, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MARK WAYNE SPRINKLE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:02-cv-1563-JAM-EFB P
v.
ORDER
LEON ROBINSON,
15
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
19
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 6, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
20
21
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
22
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendant has filed
23
objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
24
25
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. For the reasons set forth below, the court
26
declines to adopt the findings and recommendations at this time and, instead, refers the matter
27
back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
28
/////
1
1
This action arises from defendants’ violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment right of
2
access to the courts by denying plaintiff copies of documents supporting a state court habeas
3
petition.1 Plaintiff filed the petition, without supporting documents, in the Mendocino County
4
Superior Court, where it was denied on January 5, 2000. Findings and Recommendations, filed
5
August 6, 2014 (ECF No. 154) at 2-3 (quoting ECF No. 71 at 4-6). Plaintiff sought review of the
6
denial in the state court of appeal. Id.
7
Plaintiff included correspondence to that court explaining the
deficiency and lack of exhibits, and asked the court for relief and an
order to direct the institution of custody to copy the exhibits
referred to in the writ petition. On January 25, 2000, the court clerk
for the First Appellate District Court returned plaintiff’s state
habeas petition, requesting plaintiff to attach the missing exhibits
that defendants refused to copy, before the court would accept the
petition and assign it a docket number. Court records show that
plaintiff’s habeas petition was denied by the First Appellate District
Court on April 13, 2000.
8
9
10
11
12
Id. Plaintiff did not file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, nor
13
did he file a federal habeas corpus petition.2
14
On March 2, 2006, a magistrate judge recommended summary judgment for defendants
15
based on a finding that under California law a pro se habeas corpus petitioner was not required to
16
provide supporting documents with his petition and, therefore, “that defendants’ refusal to copy
17
exhibits did not cause ‘actual injury’ to plaintiff’s constitutional right to access the court.” Order
18
filed March 31, 2006 (ECF No. 49) at 1 (quoting Findings and Recommendations filed March 1,
19
2006 (ECF No. 46) at 6-7. The district court declined to adopt the findings and
20
recommendations, concluding that “the appropriate question appears to be whether the failure to
21
allow the plaintiff to provide additional evidence in support of his habeas petition resulted in the
22
state court denying the petition on the grounds that the petitioner ‘made no offer of proof by way
23
of additional evidence’ to support his argument that the findings of the jury were unreasonable.’”
24
Id. at 2. As noted above, summary judgment was subsequently entered for plaintiff on the
25
1
26
27
28
Defendants’ liability on the merits of plaintiff’s First Amendment claim has been decided in
plaintiff’s favor. See Order filed September 26, 2007 (ECF No. 74), adopting in full Findings and
Recommendations filed August 20, 2007 (ECF No. 71).
2
Plaintiff did seek direct review of his conviction in the California Supreme Court. Defs.
Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) 5 (ECF No. 134).
2
1
question of liability, leaving the question of damages for further proceedings. See ECF Nos. 71,
2
74.
3
In an order filed September 29, 2009, the district court vacated the date set for jury trial
4
and remanded the matter to the magistrate judge “for briefing as to damages, including whether
5
the inclusion of plaintiff’s exhibits with his habeas petition would have altered the result of his
6
criminal conviction and sentence, and how that issue relates to plaintiff’s claim for damages.”
7
Order filed September 28, 2009 (ECF No. 119). The findings and recommendations at bar follow
8
submission of the briefs filed by the parties.3
9
The magistrate judge notes two agreements by the parties: first, “that plaintiff’s damages
10
will be much greater if it is determined that his state habeas petition would have been granted had
11
the exhibits been included” and second, “that, regardless of whether the state petition would have
12
succeeded, plaintiff is owed nominal damages, some amount of compensatory damages, and
13
potentially punitive damages.” Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 154) at 3-4. He
14
recommends that the damages questions be tried by a jury and that the jury be tasked with
15
resolving whether petitioner’ state habeas petition had merit. Id. at 4, 18.
16
A threshold question must be resolved prior to resolution of which questions, if any, are
17
for the court in this action and which, if any, are for the jury. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
18
(1994), the United States Supreme Court held:
19
[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,
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. A claim for damages
bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not
been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a
state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must
consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it
would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can
demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
The record reflects numerous extensions of time sought and received by the parties to file their
briefs on damages and materials related thereto.
3
1
invalidated. But if the district court determines that the plaintiff's
action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any
outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action
should be allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to
the suit.
2
3
4
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. Unlike Heck, where the plaintiff sought money damages for claims
5
arising directly from his criminal conviction, see id. at 479, here plaintiff’s claim for damages
6
arises from defendants’ interference with plaintiff’s right to access the courts to obtain habeas
7
corpus relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not squarely
8
addressed whether Heck’s so-called favorable termination rule applies to damages claims based
9
on interference with habeas corpus claims or other collateral attacks on criminal convictions. See
10
Koch v. Jester, 2014 WL 3783961, slip op. at 4. The United States Court of Appeals for the
11
Seventh Circuit and several district courts in the Ninth Circuit have so held. See id. at 4-5 (and
12
cases cited therein). The threshold question that must be resolved in this action is whether
13
plaintiff may recover money damages based on a finding that his habeas corpus petition would
14
have been granted absent defendants’ refusal to make the requested copies or, instead, whether
15
this aspect of plaintiff’s claim is barred by the rule announced in Heck.4 The parties have not
16
briefed this question, and it is not addressed in the findings and recommendations before the
17
court.
18
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
19
1. The findings and recommendations filed August 6, 2014 are not adopted at this time;
20
and
21
/////
22
/////
23
/////
24
4
25
26
27
Whether a habeas corpus remedy remains available to plaintiff, and the consequences if it does
not, should also be addressed. See Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 704-05 (9th Cir. 2006)
(discussing Cunningham v. Gates, 312 F.3d 1148, 1153 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002)) (fact that habeas relief
is no longer available to a § 1983 plaintiff does not necessarily preclude application of the rule
announced in Heck); cf. Hoard v. Reddy, 175 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 1999) (“there is probably an
exception to the rule of Heck for cases in which no route other than a damages action under
section 1983 is open to the person to challenge his conviction.”)
28
4
1
2. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings
2
consistent with this order.
3
DATED: November 7, 2014
4
/s/ John A. Mendez_________________________
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?