(PC) Zaragoza v. Carrillo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PAUL ZARAGOZA, Case No. 1:19-cv-01752-NONE-JDP 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED UNDER 12 v. THE FAVORABLE-TERMINATION RULE 13 D. CARRILLO, et al. OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Paul Zaragoza is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 17 action. Plaintiff’s complaint argues that prison officials filed a false rules-violation report against 18 him, leading to a loss of good-time credits. ECF No. 1 at 3. He requests money damages. Id. at 19 6. On April 3, 2020, the court ordered that plaintiff show cause why his complaint should not be 20 dismissed as barred by the favorable-termination rule. ECF No. 11. On May 20, plaintiff 21 responded. ECF No. 12. Because the response fails to show why the favorable-termination rule 22 does not apply, we recommend that the case be dismissed. Again, plaintiff may wish to file an 23 action in state court—rather than one here in federal court—challenging the outcome of the 24 prison’s procedure. If plaintiff succeeds in such an action, he may then become eligible for relief 25 in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 26 Habeas relief (or a similar action) is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner challenging the 27 fact or duration of his confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). Even if 28 plaintiff wishes to obtain relief other than a reduction in his sentence—relief that might properly 1 be channeled through a civil rights complaint—he would first need to show that his sentence, or 2 the unlawful extension of his sentence, had been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. This 3 logic applies not just to the original conviction and sentence, but also to internal prison 4 procedures that affect good-time credits. Here, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Edwards v. 5 Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997), squarely applies: “[A] claim for declaratory relief and money 6 damages, based on allegations of deceit and bias on the part of the decisionmaker that necessarily 7 imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed [like the loss of good-time credits], is not 8 cognizable under § 1983.” 9 In his response to the order to show cause, plaintiff argues that his complaint can be 10 understood through the lens of either equal protection or due process. See ECF No. 12. But this 11 response cannot cure the favorable-termination problem. An equal-protection claim that plaintiff 12 was subject to “irrational and wholly arbitrary” treatment, see Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 13 U.S. 562, 565 (2000), or due-process claim that plaintiff was charged using fabricated evidence, 14 see Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir. 2001), are still theories that would 15 “necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed” and are therefore not cognizable 16 under § 1983, Edwards, 520 U.S. at 648. 17 Accordingly, the court recommends that this action be dismissed under the favorable- 18 termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, as applied in Edwards v. Balisok. 19 This recommendation will be submitted to a U.S. district judge presiding over the case 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within 30 days of the service of the 21 findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and 22 recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be 23 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding 24 district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 25 26 27 28 2649 VEEP YVOUNYINE VET bo POC ee AYO VM VIS > IT IS SO ORDERED. ° : —N prssann — Dated: _ June 15, 2020 4 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 | No. 205. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28