Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00120/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00120-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL DIXON LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEN CLARK, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00120-DAD-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED UNDER 

THE FAVORABLE-TERMINATION RULE

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO APPOINT COUNSEL

ECF No. 16

ORDER THAT THE CLERK’S OFFICE 

SEND PLAINTIFF AN APPLICATION FOR 

A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Plaintiff Paul Dixon Lewis is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a complaint filed January 23, 2020, plaintiff argues that his 

prison sentence is unlawful and requests compensation for the allegedly illegal incarceration. See

ECF No. 1 at 4. Because habeas relief is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner challenging the fact 

or duration of his confinement, the court ordered that plaintiff show cause why his case should 

not be dismissed as barred by the favorable-termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 

487 (1994). See ECF No. 7. The order made clear that, if plaintiff wished to obtain relief other 

than his release—relief that might properly be channeled through 42 U.S.C. § 1983—plaintiff 

would first need to show that, for example, his underlying conviction or sentence had been 

invalidated. See id.; see also Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. On February 20, 2020, plaintiff responded 

Case 1:20-cv-00120-DAD-JDP Document 18 Filed 02/24/20 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

to the order to show cause, reiterating his argument that his sentence was illegal. See ECF No. 

17. Because plaintiff has failed to show that his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is not barred by Heck, 

we will recommend that this action be dismissed. 

Plaintiff may wish to file a new petition for habeas corpus. If so, that petition should 

comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, including the requirement of § 2254(b)(1)(A) 

that the petitioner has first “exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State” in which 

he was convicted. In other words, before he is able to receive relief here in federal court, plaintiff 

must have finished the appeals process in his state of conviction. 

RECOMMENDATION 

The court recommends that this action be dismissed under the favorable-termination rule 

of Heck v. Humphrey. 

We submit the findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 

Eastern District of California. Within 14 days of the service of the findings and 

recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and recommendations 

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings 

and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

ORDER

The clerk’s office is ordered to send plaintiff an application form for a writ of habeas 

corpus.

For the reasons stated in the court’s earlier order, see ECF No. 12, plaintiff’s third motion 

for the appointment of counsel, ECF No 16, is denied. 

Case 1:20-cv-00120-DAD-JDP Document 18 Filed 02/24/20 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205.

Case 1:20-cv-00120-DAD-JDP Document 18 Filed 02/24/20 Page 3 of 3