Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01701-2/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

EARL SIMPSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01701-JLT (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED BY 

HECK V. HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) 

(Doc. 1)

30 DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Earl Simpson, is a civil detainee who is currently proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on October 23, 2013. (Doc. 

1.) In the Complaint, under "Statement of Claim" Plaintiff alleges that he is being held hostage in 

a state institution and that he has not been released to the principal place of his business. (Id., at 

3.) Plaintiff also alleges that he "is transferring his principal [sic] place of business out of the 

state of california [sic] in which he as a person he [sic] would be considered the business." (Id., at

6.) Plaintiff claims that he is held "in unlawful custody" and seeks his release. (Id., at 7.) Thus, 

it appears that Plaintiff may have intended to pursue habeas corpus relief, rather than an action 

under §1983.

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. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 

Case 1:13-cv-01701-JLT Document 10 Filed 02/07/14 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

(9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages 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 for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or 

sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983." Id. at 488. 

The Complaint does not contain any allegations to show that Plaintiff's retention as a civil 

detainee has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a writ of habeas 

corpus. It appears that Plaintiff's intent in filing this action is for habeas corpus relief rather than 

to pursue claims under § 1983.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within 30 days from the date of service of 

this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed as barred 

by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 

The failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action, without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01701-JLT Document 10 Filed 02/07/14 Page 2 of 2