Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01508/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01508-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN R. SCHRUBB, Sr.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1508 LKK PAN P

vs.

EDWARD BONNER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis relief pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff was detained pending trial on criminal charges at the time of the events

giving rise to this action. He seeks damages upon the ground defendants made a cursory

examination of his legal correspondence and refused to permit him to deliver such

correspondence to a court-appointed investigator for deposit in the mail, thereby violating

plaintiff’s right to the effective assistance of counsel and to prepare an adequate defense.

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 

Case 2:05-cv-01508-LKK -EFB Document 12 Filed 05/18/06 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

determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). A challenge to the procedures used in the revocation

of parole necessarily implicates the validity of the prisoner’s confinement. Butterfield v. Bail,

120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997) (Heck applies to challenge to procedures used in parole

revocation). Thus, when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must

consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff necessarily would imply the invalidity of his

conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can

demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. 

It appears that a judgment in plaintiff’s favor necessarily would imply the

invalidity of his conviction.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of

this order, plaintiff shall show cause in writing why his complaint should not be dismissed

pursuant to the decision in Heck v. Humphrey. 

 DATED: May 17, 2006.

\004

\ schr1508.osc heck

Case 2:05-cv-01508-LKK -EFB Document 12 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2