(PC) Turner v. Guibord ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANTHONY DEWAYNE LEE TURNER, No. 2:19-cv-0416 TLN DB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 SACRAMENTO CITY FIRE DEPT., et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. This case proceeds on plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint filed on October 14, 2020. 19 (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is before the court. (ECF No. 77.) 20 Defendant opposes the motion. (ECF No. 79.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 81.) 21 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend a pleading 22 once as a matter of course 21 days after serving it, or if a responsive pleading or motion was filed, 23 within 21 days after service of the responsive pleading or motion, whichever is first. Fed. R. Civ. 24 P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or with written consent of 25 the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 26 Leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” AmerisourceBergen 27 Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). 28 However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the 1 opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is 2 futile.” AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951. The burden to demonstrate prejudice falls 3 upon the party opposing the amendment. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 4 (9th Cir. 1987). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining three factors, a 5 presumption exists under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Eminence Capital, LLC 6 v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Undue delay, alone, is insufficient to justify 7 denial of a motion to amend. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999). 8 Here, plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint alleges wrongful arrest, unlawful search, 9 and constitutional errors at trial in connection with his existing criminal conviction. (See ECF No. 10 77 at 6-12.) As plaintiff was previously advised, however, claims concerning his criminal trial are 11 not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See ECF No. 7 at 6-7.) A habeas corpus petition under 12 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the correct procedural vehicle for a challenge to the legality or duration of 13 plaintiff’s confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser v. 14 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)). 15 In addition, as plaintiff was previously advised, such claims are barred by Heck v. 16 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (See ECF No. 14 at 5-6.) The Heck bar preserves the rule that 17 federal challenges, which, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of incarceration or 18 its duration, must be brought by way of petition for writ of habeas corpus, after exhausting 19 appropriate avenues of relief. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750-751 (2004). Accordingly, 20 “a state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no matter the relief sought 21 (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to 22 conviction or internal prison proceedings)—if success in that action would necessarily 23 demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81- 24 82 (2005). 25 Here, a judgment in plaintiff’s favor on the claims he seeks to add via amendment would 26 necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction and sentence. Such claims cannot proceed 27 unless and until the associated conviction is invalidated as required by Heck. Thus, allowing the 28 amendment would be futile and would unnecessarily delay the litigation. 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend the 2 | complaint (ECF No. 77) is denied. 3 | Dated: November 28, 2022 4 5 ccosteome iBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28