Sprinkle v. Robinson, et al

Filing 160

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/5/15. Pursuant to the order of the district judge dated November 10, 2014 157 , the parties are directed to file briefs within 30 days of the date of this order addressing whether plaintiff may recover money damages premised on a finding that his state habeas petition would have been granted absent defendants unconstitutional conduct or whether such damages are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The parties should include in their briefs a discussion of whether a habeas corpus remedy remains available to plaintiff and the consequences if it does not.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14

MARK WAYNE SPRINKLE,

15

Plaintiff,

16
17

No. 2:02-cv-1563-JAM-EFB P

v.
LEON ROBINSON ,

18

ORDER

Defendant.

19
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

20
21

U.S.C § 1983. Pursuant to the order of the district judge dated November 10, 2014 (ECF No.

22

157), the parties are directed to file briefs within 30 days of the date of this order addressing

23

whether plaintiff may recover money damages premised on a finding that his state habeas petition

24

would have been granted absent defendants’ unconstitutional conduct or whether such damages

25

are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The parties should include in their briefs

26

a discussion of whether a habeas corpus remedy remains available to plaintiff and the

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

consequences if it does not. ECF No. 157 at 4 n.4 (citing Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 704-

2

05 (9th Cir. 2006); Cunningham v. Gates, 312 F.3d 1148, 1153 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002); and Hoard v.

3

Reddy, 175 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir.1999)).

4

So ordered.

5

DATED: March 5, 2015.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2