(PC) Fairchild-Littlefield v. Shaffer ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GIGI FAIRCHILD-LITTLEFIELD, No. 1:19-cv-00499-NONE-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE 13 v. AS HECK BARRED 14 KYLE NIKI COX SHAFFER, et al., (Doc. No. 28) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Gigi Fairchild-Littlefield (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that her imprisonment is illegal and unconstitutional. 22 (See Doc. No. 1.) Although the allegations of the complaint are otherwise difficult to decipher, it 23 appears plaintiff is contending that, among other things, the jury in her underlying state court 24 criminal case acquitted her on one count and that the verdict form was manipulated “to deny her 25 due process at trial and on direct appeal” on the remaining counts. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff also 26 alleges that she challenged the legality of her state criminal conviction through a habeas corpus 27 petition filed with the United States Supreme Court. (Id. at 3-4, 12.) She contends that 28 defendants’ counsel failed to file a reply brief as required. (Id. at 3-4, 14.) According to plaintiff, 1 she therefore filed this civil rights action in this court alleging a claim for false imprisonment. 2 (Id.) 3 On October 19, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to show cause why 4 this civil rights action should not be barred by the favorable-termination rule of Heck v. 5 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff’s response to that order reiterates her original 6 arguments and fails to address the holding in Heck. (See Doc. No. 16.) Specifically, plaintiff 7 contends that the jury in her case “already invalidated” her “conviction and sentence”; therefore, 8 Heck is not an impediment to this case. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff’s contention relates only to a 9 special circumstances allegation which the jury at her trial apparently found not true which 10 plaintiff has construed as evidence that she is not guilty of and cannot be incarcerated for the 11 underlying crime of conviction. (Id.) Plaintiff also cites to other alleged flaws with respect to the 12 remaining counts of conviction in her state criminal case. (Id. at 3.) 13 On March 25, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 14 recommending that this action be dismissed under the Heck favorable termination rule. (Doc. No. 15 28.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 16 objections were due within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on April 3, 2020, 17 and again on April 28, 2020, reiterating the same arguments contained in her previous filing and 18 objecting in general terms. (Doc. Nos. 29, 30.) 19 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 20 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 21 the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 25, 2020, (Doc. No. 28), are 24 adopted in full; 25 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice as barred by Heck v. Humphrey; 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// wOAOe □□ DYES AEE MMU Oo POO Vee TOY VM VI 1 3, All pending motions, (Doc. Nos. 17, 18, 20, 24, 27), are terminated as having been 2 rendered moot by this order; 3 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a District Judge to this case for the 4 purpose of closing the case; and 5 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 6 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a 7 Li. wh F Dated: _ June 25, 2020 wea rE 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28