(PC) Richson-Bey v. Moreno ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEAN JEFFERY RICHSON-BEY, ) Case No. 1:21-cv-01294-AWI-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 13 v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS 14 R. MORENO, et al., ) (ECF No. 17) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Sean Jeffery Richson-Bey is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On April 29, 2022, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that this 20 action proceed on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendant Moreno and that Plaintiff’s due 21 process claims be dismissed as barred by the favorable termination rule set forth in Heck v. 22 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). (ECF No. 17.) The Findings and Recommendations were 23 served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id. at 24 7.) 25 Plaintiff filed objections on May 6, 2022. (ECF No. 18.) In his objections, Plaintiff submits, 26 for the first time, that he is currently serving an indeterminate life sentence and the loss of any good- 27 time credits will not have an impact on his sentence and his due process claim is therefore not barred 28 by Heck. (Id. at 3.) Habeas corpus is the sole remedy for a state prisoner who wishes to challenge his 1 confinement or its duration and seeks immediate or speedier release. Heck, 512 U.S. at 481; Preiser v. 2 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). The rule in Heck has been applied in the prison disciplinary 3 context when the “defect complained of by [plaintiff] would, if established, necessarily imply the 4 invalidity of the deprivation of his good-time credits[,]” Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 5 (1997) (emphasis added); Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2002), and if the restoration 6 of those credits “necessarily” would “affect the duration of time to be served[.]” Muhammed v. Close, 7 540 U.S. 749, 754 (2004) (per curiam); see also Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 929 n.4 (9th Cir. 8 2016) (en banc) (“Heck applies only to administrative determinations that ‘necessarily’ have an effect 9 on ‘the duration of time to be served.’ ” (citations omitted).) 10 The Ninth Circuit has declined to apply the Heck bar where success in a § 1983 action would 11 not necessarily affect the duration of the plaintiff's sentence. In Nettles v. Grounds, 12 an indeterminately-sentenced life prisoner sought restoration of 30 days of lost good-time credits and 13 expungement of the associated rule violation report. 830 F.3d at 927. The Ninth Circuit held that the 14 claim did not fall solely within the scope of habeas corpus because success on the merits would 15 not necessarily lead to an earlier release. Id. at 935. Importantly, the court stated that it could not tell 16 whether the restoration of time credits would affect the duration of confinement because 17 the prisoner had not yet been found suitable for parole, and if he was eventually paroled, the length of 18 his parole was unknown. Id. at 934-35. Courts have applied Nettles to Section 1983 actions in 19 determining whether plaintiffs’ claims are Heck-barred. See, e.g., Delgado v. Gonzalez, 686 F. App'x 20 434, 435 (9th Cir. 2017) (reversing a decision that relied on Balisok and not Nettles in determining 21 that the plaintiff's § 1983 claim was Heck-barred despite not knowing whether the loss of good- 22 time credit would necessarily affect the length of sentence). 23 Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is indeterminately sentenced and the loss of good-time 24 credits will not necessarily lead to a shorter confinement. Thus, based on the information presented 25 for the time in the objections, the Court will vacate the Findings and Recommendations and allow 26 Plaintiff to proceed on his due process challenge against Defendant Saucedo as well as the retaliation 27 claim against Defendant Moreno. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 29, 2022 (ECF No. 17) are 3 VACATED; and 4 2. The Court will order service of Plaintiffs third amended complaint by way of separate 5 order. 6 7 SO ORDERED. A (ee 8 || Dated: _May 9, 2022 OF 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28