(PC) Struggs v. Pfeiffer ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CEDRIC LYNN STRUGGS, 1:18-cv-01336-NONE-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 vs. DISMISSED AS BARRED BY HECK V. HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) AND 14 C. PFEIFFER, et al., EDWARDS v. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). 15 Defendants. 16 (ECF No. 23.) 17 30-DAY DEADLINE 18 19 Cedric Lynn Struggs (“Plaintiff”) is a sta te prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 20 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint 21 commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) 22 On September 25, 2019, the court screened the Complaint and dismissed it for failure to 23 state a claim and violation of Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with leave to 24 amend. (ECF No. 16.) On November 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. 25 (ECF No. 20.) On November 21, 2019, the court dismissed the First Amended Complaint for 26 violation of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 27 21.) On January 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint which is now before the 28 court for screening. (ECF No. 23.) 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 1 The court understands Plaintiff’s allegations as follows: 2 In brief, Plaintiff alleges that a controlled substance was found in his cell, he was issued 3 a Rules Violation Report (RVR), and his due process rights were violated at the RVR hearing 4 because the reports were false, he was not allowed an Investigative Employee or staff assistant, 5 he was not allowed to face his accusers, and he was unjustly kicked out of the hearing. Plaintiff 6 was found guilty of the disciplinary violation. As relief in the Second Amended Complaint, 7 Plaintiff requests monetary damages, dismissal of the RVR, and “grant Plaintiff’s credits.” (ECF 8 No. 23 at 10.) 9 It is unclear whether Plaintiff forfeited good-time credits or was otherwise disciplined 10 after being found guilty of the rules violation. Plaintiff has not clearly alleged in the Second 11 Amended Complaint whether he was disciplined and if so, how he was disciplined. The fact that 12 Plaintiff requests “grant Plaintiff credits” as relief in the Second Amended Complaint causes an 13 inference that Plaintiff forfeited good-time credits as a result of the guilty finding. 14 When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a 15 constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is 16 a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 17 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an 18 allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the 19 conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared 20 invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a 21 federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 22 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or 23 sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488. This 24 “favorable termination” requirement has been extended to actions under § 1983 that, if 25 successful, would imply the invalidity of prison administrative decisions which result in a 26 forfeiture of good-time credits. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643–647 (1997). 27 28 1 The Second Amended Complaint does not contain any allegations to show that Plaintiff’s 2 conviction has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a writ of 3 habeas corpus. It appears that Plaintiff's intent in filing this action is for habeas corpus relief. 4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 5 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of 6 service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed 7 as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 8 643–647 (1997). Failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action, 9 without prejudice. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: April 10, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28