Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02166/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02166-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM HARPER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2166 LKK GGH P

vs.

LT. WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 18, 2008, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to

file a second amended complaint. On January 30, 2008, and February 6, 2008, plaintiff filed

amended complaints. Accordingly, the court will screen the amended complaint filed February

6, 2008.

Named as defendants are Lieutenants Chamberlin and Williams. Plaintiff alleges

that defendant Chamberlin wrongly found him guilty of battery on a peace officer. Plaintiff

alleges that defendant Chamberlin would not allow him to call witnesses during the disciplinary

hearing. Attached to the amended complaint as an exhibit is a copy of the rules violation report

indicating that plaintiff was assessed 150 days of time credits after being found guilty by

defendant Chamberlin. As relief, plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief in the form

Case 2:07-cv-02166-LKK -GGH Document 18 Filed 03/19/08 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

2

of an order directing defendants to “stop what they are doing.” 

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), an Indiana

state prisoner brought a civil rights action under § 1983 for damages. Claiming that state and

county officials violated his constitutional rights, he sought damages for improprieties in the

investigation leading to his arrest, for the destruction of evidence, and for conduct during his trial

(“illegal and unlawful voice identification procedure”). Convicted on voluntary manslaughter

charges, and serving a fifteen year term, plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief or release from

custody. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the

complaint and held that:

in 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,

a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has

been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,

declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such

determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance

of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages

bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not

been so invalidated is not cognizable under 1983.

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. The Court expressly held that a cause of action for

damages under § 1983 concerning a criminal conviction or sentence cannot exist unless the

conviction or sentence has been invalidated, expunged or reversed. Id.

In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S. Ct. 1584 (1997), the Supreme Court

held that Heck applies to challenges to prison disciplinary hearings when the nature of the

challenge to the procedures could be such as necessarily to imply the invalidity of the judgment. 

Edwards rejected the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Gotcher v. Wood, 66 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir.

1995) that a claim challenging only the procedures employed in a disciplinary hearing is not

barred by Heck.

Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Chamberlin implicate the validity of the rules

violation report for which he was assessed time credits. Because the rules violation report has

Case 2:07-cv-02166-LKK -GGH Document 18 Filed 03/19/08 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

3

apparently not been invalidated, expunged or reversed, plaintiff’s claims against defendant

Chamberlin are barred by Heck and Edwards.

The only claim against defendant Williams is that if defendant Chamberlin had

done his job and found plaintiff not guilty, defendant Williams would not have had to refer

plaintiff to the District Attorney’s Office. These allegations do not state a colorable claim for

relief against defendant Williams.

This is the third order issued by the court dismissing plaintiff’s complaints with

leave to amend. Because it does not appear that plaintiff can cure the pleading defects, the court

recommends that this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 03/19/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

har2166.ame

Case 2:07-cv-02166-LKK -GGH Document 18 Filed 03/19/08 Page 3 of 3