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

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SEAN J. RICHSON-BEY, 1:21-cv-01482-GSA-PC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED BY 11 v. HECK V. HUMPHREY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and EDWARDS v. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). 12 WATROUS, et al., (ECF No. 1.) 13 Defendants. 30 DAY DEADLINE 14 15 16 Plaintiff, Sean J. Richson-Bey, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 17 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff complains of having been 18 wrongly charged and found guilty of delaying a peace officer in the performance of duties after 19 being issued a Rules Violation Report (“RVR”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that he is 20 completely innocent of this charge; that he was not allowed to present a defense; and that he was 21 found guilty of the Rules Violation and assessed thirty days loss of credit. Plaintiff seeks an order 22 declaring that his constitutional rights were violated and awarding him monetary damages. 23 When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a 24 constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a 25 writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 26 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an 27 allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the 28 conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared 1 invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a 2 federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 3 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or 4 sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488. This 5 “favorable termination” requirement has been extended to actions under § 1983 that, if successful, 6 would imply the invalidity of prison administrative decisions which result in a forfeiture of good- 7 time credits. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643–647 (1997). 8 The Complaint does not contain any allegations to show that Plaintiff’s finding of guilt 9 under the RVR has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a writ of 10 habeas corpus. 11 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of 12 service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed 13 as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643–647 (1997). Failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action, 14 without prejudice. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: November 12, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28