Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00822/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00822-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANDREW WALTERS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVID A. MASON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-CV-0822-KJM-CMK 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of 

California local rules. 

 On March 10, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 

within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 

304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court 

declines to adopt the findings and recommendations at this time and refers the matter back to the 

assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 

 Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against a trial judge, a probation department 

employee, a district attorney, and a public defender, all employed in Alturas, California. ECF No. 

Case 2:15-cv-00822-KJM-CMK Document 24 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

1 at 2. Plaintiff claims the judge violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights by sentencing petitioner 

to three years in custody without jurisdiction to do so, and that the other defendants “assisted in 

this erroneous decision.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff also raises several pendent state law claims. 

The magistrate judge recommends dismissal of this action on the grounds that plaintiff’s 

sole remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 21 at 2-3. In his objections, 

plaintiff, who is no longer incarcerated, contends that he served approximately “99 1/2 percent of 

his conviction” before it was reversed on appeal “at the end of the sentence.” ECF No. 22 at 1-2. 

Plaintiff also alleges in his complaint that the conviction was “appealed & overturned in 

appealant [sic] court.” ECF No. 1 at 2. Although this court does not decide the question at this 

time, it appears that a civil rights action may not be precluded under the circumstances of this 

case. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (“[I]n order to recover damages for 

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose 

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid [footnote omitted], a § 1983 plaintiff 

must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal...”). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 10, 2016, are not adopted; 

and 

 2. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings consistent with this order. 

DATED: August 22, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-00822-KJM-CMK Document 24 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 2