Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01462/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01462-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY DELMAR HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREG WHITE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01462-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE

GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983

(Doc. 1)

I. Screening Order

Plaintiff Gary Delmar Henderson (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on October 19, 2006.

Plaintiff’s claims in this action arise from an incident that began on June 11, 2005, when a home

invasion robbery was committed at plaintiff’s residence while plaintiff was present. Plaintiff, who

was on parole at the time, was questioned and subsequently arrested on June 16, 2005. Plaintiff

remains in custody. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, whom are Tulare County Sheriff’s Deputes,

violated his rights by conducting a warrantless search, making false allegations against him, and

creating false documentation against him. Plaintiff is seeking money damages and injunctive relief,

including release from custody and the dismissal of charges against him.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

Case 1:06-cv-01462-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 10/24/06 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

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a constitutional

challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas

corpus. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 1245-48 (2005); Preiser v. Rodriguez,

411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090

(1991). Moreover, when seeking relief for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,

“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.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim . . . bearing that

relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under §

1983.” Id. at 488.

Plaintiff may not at this time bring a civil rights action arising out of his allegedly wrongful

arrest and incarceration. Plaintiff’s sole remedy is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01462-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2