Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01395/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01395-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN JAMES JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. TORRES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01395-DAD-SAB(PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Ryan James Johnson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 22, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings 

and recommendations recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, brought 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), be denied. (Doc. No. 17.) Those findings 

and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 

were to be filed within thirty days. Defendants filed objections on July 21, 2016. (Doc. No. 18.)

In their objections, defendants argue only that plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference is 

barred by the holdings in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1984) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 

U.S. 641 (1997), also known as the “favorable termination” rule. Contrary to defendants’ 

argument, it cannot be determined at this stage of the proceedings whether and what impact any 

Case 1:15-cv-01395-DAD-SAB Document 20 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 3
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

loss of credits will have on plaintiff’s sentence. See Nettles v. Grounds, ___ F.3d ____, 2016 WL 

4072465, at *9 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016) (finding that a prisoner’s claim which, if successful, 

would not necessarily lead to immediate or speedier release falls outside the “core of habeas 

corpus” and that a § 1983 action was the proper vehicle by which to present such a claim). Even 

if plaintiff were to prevail on this claim against the defendants, it is not apparent that plaintiff’s 

Rules Violation Reports (“RVRs”) would necessarily be overturned and any good time credits 

restored. See Nettles, 2016 WL 4072465, at *4-5 & n.4. First, plaintiff’s complaint does not state 

a claim concerning whether the RVRs against him were proper under the Fourteenth Amendment, 

nor does he claim to seek the reinstatement of any lost good time credits. Rather, the undersigned 

reads the complaint just as the magistrate judge did: that is, it states a claim under the Eighth 

Amendment against the defendants for deliberate indifference stemming from their compelling 

plaintiff to perform work that caused him great pain. The only relevance of the RVRs is to show 

defendant Sekula was aware of plaintiff’s difficulties, and did not act to intercede.

Second, due process challenges to the loss of good time credits are generally governed by 

the “some evidence” standard, which requires only that there be “some evidence in the record” to 

support the revocation of any good time credits. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454–

55 (1985); Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. 1987) (noting that the relevant question 

was “whether there [was] any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by 

the disciplinary board”) (quoting Hill). Determining whether the defendants acted with deliberate 

indifference to plaintiff’s well-being is not necessarily the same as determining whether there was 

“some evidence” to sustain the revocation of any of his good time credits. The undersigned notes 

a court could find both inquiries to be answered in the affirmative. Since determining the former 

does not necessarily determine the latter, this action falls outside the “core of habeas corpus” 

under the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Nettles and , therefore, is not barred by the rule set out 

in Heck.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections 

submitted by defendants, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 

Case 1:15-cv-01395-DAD-SAB Document 20 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

record and by proper analysis. Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed on June 22, 2016 (Doc. No. 17), are 

adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 12) is denied; and 

3. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01395-DAD-SAB Document 20 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 3