Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00556/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00556-1/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

DANNY GARCIA,

Petitioner, No. 2: 09-cv-0556 KJN P

vs. ORDER

WARDEN, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in

forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner alleges that he is challenging the legality of a Butte County conviction. 

However, as relief he seeks money damages. In particular, petitioner requests that he be paid

money for every day he was wrongfully incarcerated. (Dkt. 1, p. 7 of 8.)

The court cannot order money damages as relief in a habeas corpus action. For

that reason, the court construes this as a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Case 2:09-cv-00556-KJN Document 15 Filed 07/21/10 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

Moreover, court records reflect that petitioner has already filed a habeas corpus petition in this

court challenging his Butte County conviction, 2: 08-3099 GEB KJN P. 

Turning to the merits of petitioner’s claims, in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), an Indiana state prisoner brought a civil rights action under § 1983 for

damages. Claiming that state and county officials violated his constitutional rights, he sought

damages for improprieties in the investigation leading to his arrest, for the destruction of

evidence, and for conduct during his trial (“illegal and unlawful voice identification procedure”). 

Convicted on voluntary manslaughter charges, and serving a fifteen-year term, plaintiff did not

seek injunctive relief or release from custody. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the

Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the complaint and held that:

in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,

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. A claim for damages

bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not

been so invalidated is not cognizable under 1983.

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. The Court expressly held that a cause of action for

damages under § 1983 concerning a criminal conviction or sentence cannot exist unless the

conviction or sentence has been invalidated, expunged or reversed. Id.

Because petitioner’s conviction has not been invalidated, expunged or reversed,

he cannot seek money damages concerning that conviction. Accordingly, the petition is

dismissed. Because this action has been construed as a civil rights action, petitioner may only

file an “amended” complaint if he can cure the pleading deficiencies discussed above.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is construed as a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

2. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

Case 2:09-cv-00556-KJN Document 15 Filed 07/21/10 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

3. The petition is dismissed with twenty-eight days to file an amended complaint;

failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of this action.

DATED: July 20, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

gar556.ord

Case 2:09-cv-00556-KJN Document 15 Filed 07/21/10 Page 3 of 3