(PC) Richson-Bey v. Watrous ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEAN RICHSON-BEY, 1:21-cv-01482-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 vs. (ECF No. 9.) 14 WATROUS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, Sean J. Richson-Bey, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 12, 2021, the court issued 21 an order to show cause requiring Plaintiff to respond within thirty days showing why this case 22 should not be dismissed as barred by the favorable termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 23 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). (ECF No. 9.) On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response to the 24 order to show cause. (ECF No. 10. 25 In Heck and its progeny, the Supreme Court held tha, where a judgment in a prisoner’s 26 favor on § 1983 action would necessarily imply the invalidity of the prisoner’s sentence or 27 conviction, the prisoner’s claim is not cognizable until he demonstrates that the sentence or 28 conviction has been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. This rule usually applies where a 1 prisoner seeks to invalidate a disciplinary determination that carried a forfeiture of behavioral 2 credits because a finding in the prisoner’s favor would invalidate the credit forfeiture and thus 3 reduce the sentence. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644 (1997). However, the Court of 4 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has noted that application of Heck’s favorable termination rule 5 “turns solely on whether a successful § 1983 action would necessarily render invalid a conviction, 6 sentence, or administrative sanction that affected the length of the prisoner’s confinement.” 7 Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, where behavioral credits do not 8 necessarily impact the prisoner’s sentence (because, for example, he is serving an indeterminate 9 life sentence), the prisoner may challenge a forfeiture of credits in a civil rights action. Roman 10 v. Knowles, 2011 WL 3741012, *11-12 (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2011) (explaining why Heck does 11 not bar a challenge to a disciplinary finding with credits forfeiture brought by a California inmate 12 serving an indeterminate life sentence); see Nettles v. Grounds, 2016 WL 4072465 (9th Cir. July 13 26, 2016) (en banc) (holding that § 1983, not habeas, is the appropriate vehicle for challenging 14 disciplinary findings that did not necessarily lengthen the prisoner’s sentence). 15 Here, Plaintiff suffered a forfeiture of thirty behavioral credits and has not obtained a 16 reversal of the disciplinary finding. However, Plaintiff has notified the court in his response to 17 the order to show cause that he is serving an indeterminate term of twenty-six years to life. (ECF 18 No. 10.at 2:16-22.) Plaintiff argues that a successful challenge under § 1983 will not have a sure 19 impact on the length or duration of his sentence required to trigger the favorable termination rule 20 pursuant to Heck and Balisok. (Id.) 21 Plaintiff is correct that as a life-term prisoner the loss of good-conduct credits will have 22 no effect on his maximum sentence and thus the favorable termination rule is inapplicable to his 23 due process claim. See Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 858 (“[W]here . . . a successful § 1983 action would 24 not necessarily result in an earlier release from incarceration . . . the favorable termination rule 25 of Heck and Edwards does not apply.”); see also Thomas v. Wong, No. C 09–0733 JSW (PR), 26 2010 WL 1233909, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. Mar.26, 2010) (holding that habeas jurisdiction was absent 27 because the disputed rules violation, which imposed a 30–day loss of time credits, did not 28 inevitably affect the duration of petitioner’s indeterminate sentence; dismissing the habeas action 1 without prejudice to petitioner bringing his claims in a § 1983 action). Accordingly, the court 2 shall discharge the order to show cause. 3 Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court’s order to 4 show cause, issued on November 12, 2021, is discharged. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: December 6, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28