(PC) Zaragoza v. Carrillo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL ZARAGOZA, No. 1:19-cv-01752-NONE-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE 13 v. UNDER THE FAVORABLE-TERMINATION RULE 14 D.CARRILLO, et al., (Doc. No. 13) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Paul Zaragoza is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, who is presently incarcerated at the California 19 Correctional Institution (“CCI”), complains that defendant Carrillo issued a false prison 20 disciplinary report against plaintiff, resulting in plaintiff: (1) receiving a 48-month placement in 21 the Special Housing Unit (“SHU”) at CCI; (2) losing good time credits; (3) being referred to the 22 Kern County District Attorney’s Office for possible prosecution. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) This matter 23 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 24 Rule 302. 25 On June 16, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 26 recommending that this action be dismissed under the favorable-termination rule announced in 27 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), reasoning that Heck bars any civil rights claim that 28 would undermine the basis for the internal prison disciplinary determination that impacted wOow 4:40 MARE VET MVE tw POO VOI EN OY OVI 1 | plaintiff's good time credits. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff timely objected to the findings and 2 || recommendations on July 10, 2020. (Doc. No. 14.) 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 5 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff's 6 | objections are founded upon what appears to be his misunderstanding of the Heck doctrine. He 7 | emphasizes that to the extent any criminal process was initiated by the Kern County District 8 | Attorney, that criminal prosecution has been dismissed. (/d. at 2.) However, the dismissal of that 9 | criminal prosecution does not resolve the Heck concern entirely. Rather, in order to seek money 10 | damages under § 1983 for any loss of good time credits, plaintiff would first have to demonstrate 11 | that the internal prison disciplinary proceeding that led to the loss of those good time credits had 12 || been invalidated, reversed, or otherwise overturned. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 13 | (1997) ([A] claim for declaratory relief and money damages, based on allegations . . . that 14 || necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed [like the loss of good-time credits], is 15 | not cognizable under § 1983.”). The court also agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that 16 || any of the various theories upon which plaintiff frames his claims would necessarily imply the 17 | invalidity of the prison disciplinary proceeding. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 16, 2020, (Doc. No. 13), are 20 adopted in full; 21 2. This action is dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey; 22 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a District Judge to this case for the 23 purpose of closing the case; and 24 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ 26 Li fa £5 Dated: _ August 6, 2020 eee Te yy 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28