Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01238/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01238-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES ARTHUR HINSHAW,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1238 FCD GGH P

vs.

JOHN B. HARDCASTLE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff alleges violations of his

rights pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403

U.S 388 (1971). On July 13, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. 

Pending before the court is the amended complaint filed August 29, 2007.

Again named as defendants are John Hardcastle, an agent with the Drug

Enforcement Administration, Assistant United States Attorney Glockner and Warden Deboo. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Glockner violated his constitutional rights by incorrectly spelling

his name as “Henshaw” on the jury verdict form. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Glockner

engaged in vindictive prosecution in violation of his constitutional rights and violated his right to

a speedy trial. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Hardcastle defamed him and that defendant Deboo

is holding him in violation of his right to a speedy trial. As relief, plaintiff seeks money

Case 2:07-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 10/03/07 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

damages.

The original complaint contained the same claims as are contained in the amended

complaint. The court dismissed the original complaint pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). In Heck, 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.

The requirements of Heck v. Humphrey, supra, apply equally to Bivens actions. 

Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996).

In the amended complaint, plaintiff argues that his claims are not Heck barred. 

Plaintiff claims that while the Seven Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, it found

that his right to speedy trial was violated.

Attached as an exhibit to the amended complaint is a copy of the July 5, 2007,

order by the Seventh Circuit affirming plaintiff’s conviction. The Seventh Circuit found that

Case 2:07-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 10/03/07 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

plaintiff waived his claim under the Speedy Trial Act. The Seventh Circuit went on to find that

even if this claim had been forfeited rather than waived, plaintiff had “nothing to gain” by a

review of this claim for plain error: “Hinshaw’s substantial rights could not have been affected

by a speedy-indictment violation where the district court failed to dismiss a charge on which he

ultimately was acquitted; accordingly, Hinshaw could not establish plain error.” See Opinion of

Court of Appeal, p. 3. The Seventh Circuit also rejected plaintiff’s claim challenging the

allegedly incorrect spelling of his name on the jury verdict form. Id.

For the reasons discussed above, it is clear that plaintiff’s claims implicate the

validity of his conviction. This action is Heck barred because plaintiff’s conviction has not been

invalidated, expunged or reversed. Accordingly, the court recommends that this action be

dismissed.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 10/2/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

hin1238.dis

Case 2:07-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 3