Parks v. Johnson et al
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 17 plaintiff Edward Parks' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 18 plaintiff Edward Parks' motion to show unlawful incarceration is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 19 plai ntiff Edward Parks' motion for reliefis DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court shall seal 19 because it contains personal identifiers, including social security numbers. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 6/1/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
EDWARD F. PARKS,
CHRISTY D. JOHNSON, et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00953-APG-PAL
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION, TO SHOW
UNLAWFUL INCARCERATION, AND
(ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19)
I previously dismissed plaintiff Edward F. Parks’ claims for a variety of reasons. ECF No.
15. Most notably, under the rule announced in Heck v. Humphrey, if a judgment in the plaintiff’s
favor in a § 1983 case “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . .
the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or
sentence has already been invalidated.” 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Thus, I dismissed Parks’
claims without prejudice to refiling them should his criminal conviction later be invalidated
because he clearly was attempting to challenge his conviction and sentence through this lawsuit.
Parks moves for reconsideration (ECF No. 17), stating he was coerced into a signing his
plea deal and he refers to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). However, as I explained in my
prior order, Parks cannot pursue a § 1983 lawsuit that challenges the validity of his prior
conviction or sentence without demonstrating the conviction or sentence has already been
invalidated. He has not done so. I therefore deny his motion for reconsideration.
Parks next filed a motion to show unlawful incarceration (ECF No. 18), in which he also
challenges the validity of his prior conviction and sentence and claims he is actually innocent.
For the same reasons, I deny this motion.
Finally, Parks filed a motion (ECF No. 19) stating he has little access to the courts and
stating that his case is twelve years old, resulting in significant hardship to him and his wife. It is
unclear what relief Parks seeks from this motion, but as stated previously, Parks cannot pursue a
§ 1983 claim on the basis that his criminal conviction and sentence are invalid without first
establishing that his conviction or sentence has already been invalidated, and he has not done so.
I therefore deny this motion as well. Additionally, I note that Parks has included private personal
data in this filing, such as social security numbers. I will direct the clerk of court to seal this
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Edward Parks’ motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 17) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Edward Parks’ motion to show unlawful
incarceration (ECF No. 18) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Edward Parks’ motion for relief (ECF No. 19)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court shall seal ECF No. 19 because it
contains personal identifiers, including social security numbers.
DATED this 1st day of June, 2017.
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
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?