(PC) Haynie v. D'Arelli ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONELL HAYNIE, Case No. 1:23-cv-00638-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 13 v. DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 SHARON D’ARELLI, (Doc. 6) 15 Defendant. Clerk of Court to close the case. 16 17 The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the action 18 for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff’s exclusive recourse to obtaining the relief he seeks 19 is through habeas corpus. (Doc. 6.) Additionally, because the complaint is Heck-barred on its 20 face, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice. (Id. at 5.) 21 Plaintiff filed objections, arguing the magistrate judge misconstrued his section 1983 22 action as one challenging the legality or duration of his custody. (Docs. 9, 11.)1 Instead, Plaintiff 23 claims he filed this action “to retrieve evidence and a declaration,” specifically, a transcript of a 24 state court proceeding that occurred on September 24, 2010, in his underlying criminal case in 25 Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. (Doc. 1 at 3.) 26 First, Plaintiff is incorrect in stating that he “filed this action to retrieve evidence.” (Doc. 27 28 1 Plaintiff filed duplicate objections, except for additional verification attached to the front of the 1 9 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges a court reporter (Defendant) presented an uncertified transcript to the 2 state court during a hearing on Plaintiff’s state habeas challenge on July 9, 2021. (Doc. 1 at 3.) 3 Plaintiff asserts the uncertified transcript falsely represented that a hearing in Plaintiff’s 4 underlying criminal case took place on September 24, 2010. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff alleges 5 Defendant’s actions “result[ed] in false imprisonment” because they caused him to be 6 imprisoned “beyond the statutory maximum of eight (8) years.” (Id.) In the complaint’s request 7 for relief, Plaintiff does not demand a copy of the transcript: instead, he seeks “one (1) million 8 U.S. dollars for false imprisonment . . .” (Id. at 6.) 9 Second, even were the Court to construe Plaintiff’s section 1983 claim as one seeking 10 access to evidence, Plaintiff’s reliance on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Osborne for the 11 proposition that a plaintiff may seek through a section 1983 action documentary materials (such 12 as the referenced hearing transcript) that constitute evidence in an underlying suit is misplaced. 13 (Doc. 9 at 3.) The Supreme Court squarely held in a later appeal that a plaintiff has no due 14 process right to obtain postconviction access to a state’s evidence–in that case, DNA. Dist. Atty’s 15 Off. for Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 61–62 (2009). Instead, the Court explained that 16 section 1983 relief in this context may be available only if a plaintiff “demonstrate[s] the 17 inadequacy of the state-law procedures available to him in state postconviction relief.” Id. at 71. 18 As in Osborne, Plaintiff has failed to plead or otherwise meet his burden of 19 demonstrating inadequate state-law procedures. In sum, because Plaintiff seeks damages under 20 section 1983 for what he characterizes as an unconstitutional term of imprisonment2 and has not 21 shown his sentence was invalidated, Plaintiff’s complaint must also be dismissed as Heck-barred. 22 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 23 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 17, 2023, (Doc. 6), are 24 ADOPTED IN FULL. 25 2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon 26 which relief can be granted. 27 28 2 (See Doc.1 at 3 (“Defendant’s actions caused Plaintiff to be held beyond the statutory maximum 1 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4] Dated: _ July 25, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28