Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00045/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00045-3/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

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

MARK A. McKENZIE,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 0045 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER RE MOTION (DOC 16 )

B. K. RUSH, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s

motion for to stay this action pending resolution of a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The complaint in this action claims that defendants violated Plaintiff’s Due Process rights

at a prison disciplinary hearing. On March 20, 2006, an order was entered, dismissing the

complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. Specifically, the complaint was dismissed

because Plaintiff had not alleged that his disciplinary conviction had been invalidated. Because

Plaintiff’s claim in this case, if proven, would necessarily invalidate his conviction at the prison

disciplinary hearing, such a claim may not be brought in a civil rights action until that claim as

been reversed, expunged or otherwise invalidated. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644

(1997).

Plaintiff has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of the

prison disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff requests that this action be stayed pending the resolution of

Case 1:05-cv-00045-AWI-WMW Document 17 Filed 06/20/06 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

2

his habeas petition. Plaintiff is advised that because he has not alleged that his conviction has

been invalidated, this action should be dismissed. The court will, however, recommend that this

action be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new action once Plaintiff has had his

conviction invalidated.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to stay this action

pending resolution of his habeas petition is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00045-AWI-WMW Document 17 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 2