Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02369/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02369-0/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

KRZYSZTOF WOLINSKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

GURSHARN GILL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2369 DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Before the court is plaintiff’s complaint for screening and plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. A review of plaintiff’s complaint shows that he may be required to bring his claims in a 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 rather in this § 1983 action. 

However, the court does not have sufficient information to make that determination. Therefore, 

and for the reasons set forth below, this court will order plaintiff to provide further information

before proceeding. 

Briefly, plaintiff’s complaint states the following. He is a prisoner at the California 

Health Care Facility and complains of conduct occurring there in early 2019. Plaintiff alleges 

that he reported misconduct by defendant Gill to Gill’s supervisor. Defendants Gill and Thao 

then retaliated against him by falsifying a rules violation report. Plaintiff further alleges that his 

due process rights were violated at the rules violation hearing. He states that he was found guilty 

Case 2:19-cv-02369-WBS-DB Document 6 Filed 01/06/20 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

of a rules violation and assessed a loss of good time credits. Plaintiff seeks expungement of the 

rules violation conviction and restoration of his good time credits. 

In Heck v. Humphrey, the Supreme Court held that “habeas corpus is the exclusive 

remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks 

immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of § 

1983.” Heck, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). A plaintiff cannot maintain a § 1983 action to recover 

damages for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render [his] conviction or 

sentence invalid” when his sentence and conviction have not previously been reversed, expunged, 

declared invalid, or called into question upon issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by a federal 

court. Id. at 486–87. The Supreme Court has extended this holding to civil-rights actions in 

which the plaintiff seeks declaratory or injunctive relief as well as damages. Edwards v. Balisok, 

520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997).

In Smith v. City of Hemet, the Ninth Circuit reiterated: “[I]f a criminal conviction arising 

out of the same facts stands and is fundamentally inconsistent with the unlawful behavior for 

which section 1983 damages are sought, the 1983 action must be dismissed.” 394 F.3d 689, 695 

(9th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). “Consequently, ‘the relevant question is whether success in a 

subsequent § 1983 suit would necessarily imply or demonstrate the invalidity of the earlier 

conviction or sentence.’” Beets v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487).

Under Heck, a state prisoner’s claim is not cognizable under § 1983 if success on the 

claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of a still-valid sentence or disciplinary finding that 

affects the length of his incarceration. Consequently, a prisoner’s § 1983 challenge to 

disciplinary hearing procedures is barred if judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the 

invalidity of the resulting loss of good-time credits and that loss of credits would “necessarily 

impact the fact or duration of his confinement.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931, 934 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (en banc); see also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997) (dismissing § 1983 

action for declaratory relief and monetary damages because successful challenge to procedures 

used in disciplinary hearing would necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed). 

Case 2:19-cv-02369-WBS-DB Document 6 Filed 01/06/20 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

Plaintiff’s claims here, if successful, would invalidate his conviction for a rules violation. 

Plaintiff alleges a loss of credits due to that conviction. If that loss of credits would necessarily 

affect the length of plaintiff’s sentence, then, under Heck, plaintiff must first seek relief through a 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

So that this court can determine whether plaintiff may proceed with this action under § 

1983, plaintiff must provide the court with additional information. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of 

this order, plaintiff shall file a statement with the court explaining the following:

1. The conviction and sentence that plaintiff is currently serving; and

2. What loss of credits he incurred from the rules violation conviction. 

Dated: January 3, 2020

DLB:9

DB/prisoner-civil rights/woli2369.heck stmt

Case 2:19-cv-02369-WBS-DB Document 6 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 3