Hawes v. State of California

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO REOPEN CASE AND FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 3/7/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

TERRY RAY HAWES,

9

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 11-4361 WHA (PR)
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
REOPEN CASE AND FOR
RECONSIDERATION

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.
/

13
14

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint under

15

42 U.S.C. 1983. He seeks to be released from custody based upon his claim that defendant

16

forced medication upon him during his trial, which plaintiff contends violated his First

17

Amendment right to the separation of church and state. As release from custody is a form of

18

relief that may only be obtained in federal court by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

19

under 28 U.S.C. 2254, see Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011) (habeas is the

20

“exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “immediate or speedier release” from

21

confinement); see Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2004) (challenges

22

implicating the fact or duration of confinement must be brought in a habeas petition), the

23

complaint was dismissed without prejudice to filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

24

Plaintiff has written letters to the court asking if he can proceed with this action and

25

have it reopened if he only seeks money damages instead of release from custody. These letters

26

are construed as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

27

Procedure. In order to recover money damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 based on an alleged error

28

during a criminal trial in state court, a plaintiff must prove that the conviction arising from that

1

trial has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid, or

2

called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey,

3

512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or

4

sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. Until

5

plaintiff’s conviction has been reversed, expunged or otherwise invalidated, he may not obtain

6

money damages based upon his claim that his rights were violated during his trial in state court.

7

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for reconsideration and to reopen his case is DENIED.

8
9

28 U.S.C. 2254.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
Dated: March
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

The clerk is instructed to mail plaintiff the court’s form for filing a habeas petition under

7

, 2012.

12

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.11\HAWES4361.REC.wpd

2