Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01294/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01294-3/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Sean Jeffery Richson-Bey is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 29, 2022, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that this 

action proceed on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendant Moreno and that Plaintiff’s due 

process claims be dismissed as barred by the favorable termination rule set forth in Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). (ECF No. 17.) The Findings and Recommendations were 

served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id. at 

7.) 

Plaintiff filed objections on May 6, 2022. (ECF No. 18.) In his objections, Plaintiff submits, 

for the first time, that he is currently serving an indeterminate life sentence and the loss of any goodtime credits will not have an impact on his sentence and his due process claim is therefore not barred 

by Heck. (Id. at 3.) Habeas corpus is the sole remedy for a state prisoner who wishes to challenge his 

SEAN JEFFERY RICHSON-BEY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. MORENO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:21-cv-01294-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No. 17)

Case 1:21-cv-01294-JLT-SAB Document 19 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 3
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

confinement or its duration and seeks immediate or speedier release. Heck, 512 U.S. at 481; Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). The rule in Heck has been applied in the prison disciplinary 

context when the “defect complained of by [plaintiff] would, if established, necessarily imply the 

invalidity of the deprivation of his good-time credits[,]” Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646

(1997) (emphasis added); Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2002), and if the restoration 

of those credits “necessarily” would “affect the duration of time to be served[.]” Muhammed v. Close,

540 U.S. 749, 754 (2004) (per curiam); see also Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 929 n.4 (9th Cir.

2016) (en banc) (“Heck applies only to administrative determinations that ‘necessarily’ have an effect 

on ‘the duration of time to be served.’ ” (citations omitted).)

The Ninth Circuit has declined to apply the Heck bar where success in a § 1983 action would 

not necessarily affect the duration of the plaintiff's sentence. In Nettles v. Grounds, 

an indeterminately-sentenced life prisoner sought restoration of 30 days of lost good-time credits and 

expungement of the associated rule violation report. 830 F.3d at 927. The Ninth Circuit held that the 

claim did not fall solely within the scope of habeas corpus because success on the merits would 

not necessarily lead to an earlier release. Id. at 935. Importantly, the court stated that it could not tell 

whether the restoration of time credits would affect the duration of confinement because 

the prisoner had not yet been found suitable for parole, and if he was eventually paroled, the length of 

his parole was unknown. Id. at 934-35. Courts have applied Nettles to Section 1983 actions in 

determining whether plaintiffs’ claims are Heck-barred. See, e.g., Delgado v. Gonzalez, 686 F. App'x

434, 435 (9th Cir. 2017) (reversing a decision that relied on Balisok and not Nettles in determining 

that the plaintiff's § 1983 claim was Heck-barred despite not knowing whether the loss of goodtime credit would necessarily affect the length of sentence).

Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is indeterminately sentenced and the loss of good-time 

credits will not necessarily lead to a shorter confinement. Thus, based on the information presented 

for the time in the objections, the Court will vacate the Findings and Recommendations and allow 

Plaintiff to proceed on his due process challenge against Defendant Saucedo as well as the retaliation 

claim against Defendant Moreno. 

///

Case 1:21-cv-01294-JLT-SAB Document 19 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 29, 2022 (ECF No. 17) are 

VACATED; and

2. The Court will order service of Plaintiff’s third amended complaint by way of separate 

order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2022 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01294-JLT-SAB Document 19 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 3