(PC) Struggs v. Pfeiffer ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CEDRIC LYNN STRUGGS, 1:18-cv-01336-NONE-GSA-PC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 12 RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING vs. THIS CASE AS BARRED BY HECK V. 13 HUMPHREY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) AND C. PFEIFFER, et al., EDWARDS v. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) 14 AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CLOSE Defendants. THIS CASE 15 (Doc. Nos. 23, 28.) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Cedric Lynn Struggs is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On May 14, 2020, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that this 22 case be dismissed as barred by the favorable termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 23 (1994), and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), without prejudice to plaintiff’s filing a 24 petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 28.) On June 2, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to 25 the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 29.) 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 27 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 28 including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be wOAOe □□ VV EVI MALES SA YUCCA eT Oy Ove 1 || supported by the record and proper analysis. As explained in the findings and 2 || recommendations, plaintiff's claims, if successful, would call into question the validity of 3 || prison administrative decisions that resulted in the forfeiture of plaintiff's good time credits. 4 ||(Doc. No. 25 at 2.) Asa result, his claims are barred by the decision in Heck and Balisok. 5 || Plaintiff's objections, which largely reiterate the types of allegations contained in his operative 6 |}complaint (Doc. No. 29 at 2-7), fail to provide any reason why the court should find otherwise. 7 || In his objections, plaintiff also summarizes his unsuccessful efforts to pursue a habeas relief in 8 || state court. Ud. at 1-2.) Plaintiff likely provides this information in response to the magistrate 9 || judge’s suggestion that a federal habeas corpus petition is plaintiffs “sole federal remedy” with 10 ||regard to the prison administrative decisions he challenges here. (See Doc. No. 28 at 2.) The 11 || fact that plaintiff filed a state habeas petition that was ultimately denied may be relevant if he 12 |] ultimately files a federal habeas petition. However, his unsuccessful state habeas petition does 13 call into question the reasoning set forth or conclusion reached in the pending findings and 14 ||recommendations that his claims must be dismissed under the Supreme Court’s decisions in 15 || Heck and Balisok. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 14, 2020 (Doc. No. 28), are 18 adopted in full; 19 2. This action is dismissed as barred by the favorable termination rule of Heck v. 20 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), 21 without prejudice to filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus; and 22 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purposes 23 of closure and to close this case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ ‘ai 26 Dated: _ July 1, 2020 eee Te — UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28