Johnson v. Garza et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/8/2008:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION WILLIE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT GARZA, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No.

07 C 6862

MEMORANDUM ORDER As this Court had directed in its brief August 15 memorandum order ("Order"), counsel for plaintiff Willie Johnson ("Johnson") has filed Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Heck v. Humphrey Defense. Over and above the puzzling aspect of the current

assertion by defendant of a Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) defense on that score, as identified in the Order, Johnson's current Response demonstrates that any such attempted invocation of Heck v. Humphrey is totally without merit. Nothing in Johnson's acknowledgment of his violation of a condition of supervised release, as the result of which no sanction was imposed by this Court's colleague Honorable James Holderman, even arguably equates to a "conviction" or "sentence" that must be reversed or otherwise stricken before a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action can be filed, as Heck teaches. Nor is Johnson's

situation in that respect even arguably comparable to the loss of good time credits flowing from prison disciplinary proceedings, a situation to which Edward v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997)

extended the Heck principle. Accordingly that portion of the responsive pleading (Rule 12(b)(6) defense No. 3), treated as a motion to dismiss, is denied. stricken. That portion of defendants' responsive pleading is

________________________________________ Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge Date: September 8, 2008

2