(PC) Hendrix v. Gomez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOMINIQUE HENDRIX, No. 2:21-cv-01062-WBS-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. GOMEZ, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 19 U.S. 477 (1994). ECF No. 27. For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss must be denied. 20 I. Background 21 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s claim that defendant used excessive force against him 22 on November 12, 2020. ECF No. 1 at 3, 13; ECF No. 11; ECF No. 16. Defendant submits 23 documents to the court indicating that plaintiff was found guilty of a rules violation for battery on 24 a peace officer as a result of the altercation. ECF No. 28 (Def.’s Request for Judicial Notice ISO 25 Mot. to Dismiss).1 26 1 Defendant asks the court to judicially notice the records of the California Department of 27 Corrections and Rehabilitation concerning plaintiff’s rules violation. ECF No. 28. Because the court need not consider the content those documents to determine the instant motion, the court 28 declines to rule on the request for judicial notice. 1 II. The Motion to Dismiss 2 Defendant argues that the case must be dismissed because it is barred by Heck v. 3 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck and its progeny, the Supreme Court held that, where a 4 judgment in a prisoner’s favor on § 1983 action would necessarily imply the invalidity of the 5 prisoner’s sentence or conviction, the prisoner’s claim is not cognizable until she demonstrates 6 that the sentence or conviction has been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 483, 486-87. This rule 7 usually applies where success in a prisoner’s civil rights suit would necessarily invalidate a 8 disciplinary determination that carried a forfeiture of behavioral credits, because a finding in the 9 prisoner’s favor would invalidate the credit forfeiture and thus reduce the sentence. Edwards v. 10 Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644 (1997). However, where the plaintiff has been released from custody 11 – and thus cannot challenge the discipline through a habeas petition because such a petition would 12 be dismissed as moot – he may pursue a damages action under § 1983 even if success therein 13 would imply the invalidity of the discipline and revocation of credits. Nonette v. Small, 316 F.3d 14 872, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2002). See also Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584, 613 (9th Cir. 2019); 15 Lyall v. City of L.A., 807 F.3d 1178, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 2015). 16 Here, the parties do not dispute that plaintiff was assessed a 150-day forfeiture of time 17 credits as a result of the disciplinary determination he received after the altercation between 18 plaintiff and defendant. ECF Nos. 27 at 7, 30. But it is also undisputed that plaintiff was slated 19 for release on June 1, 2022. ECF No. 27 at 6; ECF No. 30. Searches of the California 20 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Inmate Locator website on June 26, 2022 under 21 both plaintiff’s name and inmate identification number revealed no inmate by plaintiff’s name in 22 California state prison. CDCR Inmate Locator, https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/search.aspx. It 23 thus appears that plaintiff is no longer incarcerated and would therefore be unable to seek reversal 24 or expungement of the disciplinary finding as Heck requires, thus bringing this action within the 25 exception to Heck recognized by the Ninth Circuit in Nonette. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 iI. Conclusion and Recommendation 2 For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that defendant’s April 4, 2022 3 || motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27) be DENIED. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 6 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 8 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 9 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 10 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 | Dated: August 19, 2022. > 13 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28