(PC)Ramirez v. Khale ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, 1:21-cv-01237-NONE-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS 13 vs. BARRED BY HECK V. HUMPHREY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) AND EDWARDS v. BALISOK, 520 14 KHALE, U.S. 641 (1997). 15 (ECF No. 1.) Defendant. 16 30 DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff, Israel Maldonado Ramirez, is a detainee at Atascadero State Hospital in 19 Atascadero, California, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action. At 20 the time of the events alleged in the Complaint Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Madera County 21 Jail in Madera, California. Plaintiff complains that he is being falsely detained and should be 22 released under the “Federal Release Rule.” (Comp., ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that 23 President Obama said he could have one Federal Release within the time limit, and Plaintiff 24 wants immediate release per “Federal Corpus” paperwork. (Id. at 4.) 25 When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a 26 constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is 27 a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 28 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an 1 allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the 2 conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared 3 invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a 4 federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 5 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or 6 sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488. This 7 “favorable termination” requirement has been extended to actions under § 1983 that, if 8 successful, would imply the invalidity of prison administrative decisions which result in a 9 forfeiture of good-time credits. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643–647 (1997). 10 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain any allegations to show that Plaintiff's finding of 11 guilt has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a writ of habeas 12 corpus. 13 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of 14 service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed 15 as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 16 643–647 (1997). Failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action, 17 without prejudice. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: September 24, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28