(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, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE 13 vs. BE DISMISSED AS BARRED BY HECK V. HUMPHREY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) AND 14 KHALE, EDWARDS v. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 1.) 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 18 19 20 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Israel Maldonado Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) is a detainee at Atascadero State Hospital in 23 Atascadero, California, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action 24 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing 25 this action. (ECF No. 1.) 26 On September 27, 2021, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to respond and show 27 cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 28 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). (ECF No. 13.) 1 On September 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response to the court’s order. (ECF No. 14.) 2 II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS 3 In brief, Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that during the relevant time period he was 4 incarcerated at Madera County Jail in Madera, California Plaintiff alleges that he was being 5 falsely detained and should be released under the Federal Release Rule. (Comp., ECF No. 1 at 6 3.) Plaintiff alleges that President Obama said he could have one Federal Release within the time 7 limit, and Plaintiff wants immediate release per “Federal Corpus” paperwork. (Id. at 4.) 8 III. HECK V. HUMPHREY AND EDWARDS v. BALISOK 9 When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a 10 constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is 11 a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 12 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an 13 allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the 14 conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared 15 invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a 16 federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487- 17 88. “A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been 18 so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488. This “favorable termination” 19 requirement has been extended to actions under § 1983 that, if successful, would imply the 20 invalidity of prison administrative decisions which result in a forfeiture of good-time credits. 21 Balisok, 520 U.S. at 643–647. 22 A. Plaintiff’s Response to the Court’s Order 23 Plaintiff responded to the court’s order to show cause, stating that he wants a Federal 24 Release to be released permanently. Plaintiff also requests to be given a purple heart. He claims 25 that he is being falsely imprisoned. 26 B. Discussion 27 Plaintiff submitted no evidence that an appeal was granted, or that his conviction or 28 sentence was reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a federal court’s 1 issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Therefore, this court finds that Plaintiff’s 2 § 1983 case is barred by the favorable termination rule of Heck and Balisok and should be 3 dismissed, without prejudice to filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 4 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 The court has found that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim upon which 6 relief can be granted, and that Plaintiff is barred by Heck and Balisok from pursuing his claims 7 in this case under § 1983. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed, without 8 prejudice to filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 10 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED for failure to state a § 1983 claim, as barred 11 by the favorable termination rule of Heck and Balisok, without prejudice to filing 12 a petition for writ of habeas corpus; and 13 2. The Clerk be directed to close this case. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 16 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 17 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 19 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 20 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 21 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: October 1, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28