Garcia v. Superior Court of California, County of Orange ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JIMMY M. GARCIA, Case No. 1:19-cv-01636-LJO-JDP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED 12 v. BY THE FAVORABLE-TERMINATION RULE 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, et al. FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 14 Defendants. ORDER VACATING THE COURT’S 15 SUMMONS AND PREVIOUS SCHEDULING ORDER 16 ECF Nos. 2, 3 17 18 Plaintiff Jimmy M. Garcia is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action. 19 Plaintiff argues that he is innocent of the crime for which he was convicted, and claims that there 20 were evidentiary problems at his trial. See ECF No. 1. While plaintiff does not specifically state 21 what relief he seeks, I believe he is seeking a release from prison. See id. at 6 (“I am seeking 22 relief and justice [for] my innocen[ce].”). Thus, while plaintiff has filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 23 complaint form, he may need instead to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas relief 24 is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his confinement and 25 seeking an immediate or speedier release. See, e.g., Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 26 (1994). Should plaintiff wish to file a new petition for habeas corpus, that petition should comply 27 with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, including the requirement of § 2254(b)(1)(A) that the 28 petitioner has first “exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State” in which he was 1 | convicted. In other words, before he is able to receive relief here in federal court, plaintiff must 2 | have finished the appeals process in his state of conviction. 3 Even if plaintiff wishes to obtain relief other than his release—trelief that might properly 4 | be channeled through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than a habeas petition—plaintiff would first need 5 | to show that his underlying conviction has been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 6 | Accordingly, I order plaintiff to make such a demonstration. If he cannot, I will recommend that 7 | this civil rights case be dismissed as barred by the so-called favorable-termination rule of Heck v. 8 | Humphrey. 9 | ORDER 10 Plaintiff has fourteen days to show cause why his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint should not 11 || be dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Plaintiff may make this showing by demonstrating 12 | that his underlying conviction has been invalidated. Failure to comply with this order may result 13 | in dismissal of this action. 14 The summons and new case documents issued in this case, ECF Nos. 2, 3, were issued in 15 | error and are hereby vacated. 16 | No. 205. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( Caan Dated: _ January 8, 2020 20 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28