Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00522/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00522-1/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

DAVID RAPHAEL KING,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0522 DFL DAD P

vs.

MICHAELL RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint and motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis.

On March 29, 2006, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint because it appeared

that plaintiff’s claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff was also

advised that if he was seeking to overturn his underlying criminal conviction, his sole remedy

was a writ of habeas corpus.

In his amended complaint, plaintiff contends that defendants F.B.I. agents

Rodriguez and Osborne obtained a coerced statement which was used to obtain an indictment

and a warrant for plaintiff’s arrest. (Am. Compl. at 3; Attach., Form Civil Rights Complaint, at

8.) Plaintiff was subsequently tried on federal charges of conspiracy to unlawfully use the

Case 2:06-cv-00522-JKS-DAD Document 9 Filed 04/04/07 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

identification of another and to commit bank fraud, bank fraud and attempted bank fraud, and

unlawful use of a means of identification of another person. (Id., Attach., Third Superseding

Indictment Penalty Slip, at 1.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount of $90,000. 

As plaintiff was previously advised, this action is barred by the decision in Heck. 

A suit for damages on a civil rights claim concerning an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment cannot be maintained absent proof “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 . . ..” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. This is so even where plaintiff claims that he

is not challenging his conviction, but instead is challenging the actions of the federal agents and

the fraud they allegedly committed in order to obtain the indictment against him. The reasoning

set forth in Heck, has been applied to claims such as this brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Williams

v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1341 (D.C. Cir.1996) (reasoning that Bivens claims and §1983 claims are

similar and Heck applies to Bivens claims); Abella v. Rubino, 63 F.3d 1063, 1065 (11th

Cir.1995) (same); Zolicoffer v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 884 F. Supp. 173, 175-76 (M.D.

Pa.1995) (same). 

Here, a judgment in plaintiff's favor would necessarily invalidate his federal

conviction and sentence. Therefore, unless and until plaintiff's federal conviction is reversed,

expunged or held invalid under Heck, he cannot maintain a Bivens claim. See Heck, 512 U.S. at

486-87; Whitmore v. Harrington, 204 F.3d 784, 784-85 (8th Cir.2000) ( Bivens action).

On March 30, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. The motion should be denied because this civil rights action is barred by Heck v.

Humphrey. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00522-JKS-DAD Document 9 Filed 04/04/07 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

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed without prejudice as barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477 (1994); and

2. Plaintiff’s March 30, 2006 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be

denied.

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: April 3, 2007.

DAD:4

king0522.56

Case 2:06-cv-00522-JKS-DAD Document 9 Filed 04/04/07 Page 3 of 3