(PC)Rivas v. Cook ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL RIVAS, No. 1:21-cv-01007-DAD-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 J. COOK, ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 6) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Daniel Rivas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 On June 28, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that this action be dismissed because it is barred by the favorable termination rule 23 of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and the statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 24 actions. (Doc. No. 6.) Based on the conclusion that plaintiff’s claims were barred, the magistrate 25 judge found that any amendment to the complaint would be futile. (Id. at 3–4 (citing Akhtar v. 26 Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 2012).) The findings and recommendations were served 27 on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one 28 ///// 1 (21) days from the date of service. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff filed objections on July 19, 2021. (Doc. 2 No. 8.) 3 In his objections, plaintiff does not dispute the magistrate judge’s findings that his claims 4 are barred by the favorable termination rule of Heck. (See Doc. No. 8 at 2.) Rather, plaintiff 5 contends that the court should stay this matter until a related federal habeas proceeding is 6 resolved. (Id. at 2–3.) The court declines to do so. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 (“when a state 7 prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in 8 favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it 9 would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction 10 or sentence has already been invalidated”) (emphasis added). 11 Plaintiff additionally objects to the magistrate judge’s findings that his claims are barred 12 by the applicable statute of limitations. (Doc. No. 8 at 2–3.) Plaintiff appears to contend that his 13 claims will not accrue until his allegedly wrongful criminal conviction has been overturned. (Id.) 14 The court acknowledges that a § 1983 claim for unlawful conviction or imprisonment does not 15 accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 489–90; see 16 also Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998). For this reason, the 17 court will not dismiss this action on statute of limitations grounds. However, the court will 18 dismiss this action as barred at this time by the holding in Heck. 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 finds the findings 21 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis to the extent they 22 recommend dismissal under Heck. 23 Accordingly, 24 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 28, 2021 (Doc. No. 6) are 25 adopted to the extent they recommend dismissal based on the favorable 26 termination rule of Heck, 512 U.S. 477; 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 2. This action is dismissed; and 2 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 3 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a 7. Dated: _ August 16, 2021 VL AL oye 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28