Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02557/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02557-11/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 ORDER REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS - 1

2:04-CV-2557-RRB-EFB-P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:04-CV-2557-RRB-EFB-P

ORDER

Plaintiff Ronald Foster (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks damages and

injunctive relief reinstating his single cell status. The matter

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On March 2, 2007, Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan

filed Findings and Recommendations (Docket 58) herein which were

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties

that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be

RONALD FOSTER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M.D. McDONALD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 60 Filed 04/05/07 Page 1 of 5
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 As a result, and in accordance with the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, the Court has

conducted a de novo review of this case.

2 See Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support

of Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket 46, Ex. B. 

ORDER REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS - 2

2:04-CV-2557-RRB-EFB-P

filed within fourteen days. Defendants filed timely objections to

the findings and recommendations at Docket 59.1

Defendants M.D. McDonald, et al. (“Defendants”) object

only to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that Defendants’

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant M.D. McDonald be

denied. Defendants’ objections concern the applicability of

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), to Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment claims against Defendant M.D. McDonald for his role in

removing Plaintiff from single cell status. Plaintiff’s refusal to

double-cell has resulted in a reduction of his good-time credits

and caused him to be placed on zero-earning status. 2 Defendants

argue that although Plaintiff does not seek restoration of his

good-time credit, a decision in his favor would necessarily require

restoration of Plaintiff’s credit earning status, which would in

turn necessarily alter his release date. Defendants, therefore,

reiterate their position that Plaintiff’s sole remedy is a habeas

corpus action.

In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), the Supreme

Court held that a claim for damages and declaratory relief brought

by a prisoner challenging the validity of the procedures used to

deprive him of good-time credits is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C.

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 60 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 5
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 Preiser, 411 U.S. 489-90.

4 Heck, 512 U.S. at 486.

5 Id. at 487.

ORDER REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS - 3

2:04-CV-2557-RRB-EFB-P

§ 1983. The holding in Balisok was premised on the holdings in

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), and Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477 (1994), both of which limit prisoners to habeas relief

where their claims necessarily challenge the duration of their

confinement. 

In Preiser, the Court held that the sole remedy for a

prisoner seeking restoration of good time credits is a writ of

habeas corpus.3

 Similarly, in Heck, the Court held that a claim

for damages under § 1983 concerning a criminal conviction or

sentence cannot exist unless the conviction or sentence has been

invalidated, expunged or reversed.4 More specifically, the Court

held that if a “judgment in favor of the plaintiff would

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,”

the prisoner’s claim for damages is not cognizable under §1983,

unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or

sentence has already been invalidated.5

In Balisok, the plaintiff alleged violations of his due

process rights under § 1983 with regard to disciplinary proceedings

that resulted in the loss of good-time credit. The Court held that

plaintiff’s alleged deprivations of due process during the

disciplinary proceedings necessarily implied the invalidity of the

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 60 Filed 04/05/07 Page 3 of 5
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

6 Balisok, 520 U.S. at 648.

ORDER REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS - 4

2:04-CV-2557-RRB-EFB-P

punishment imposed, i.e., the loss of his good-time credits.6 The

Court held that plaintiff’s requests for damages and declaratory

relief were therefore not cognizable under § 1983. 

In the present case, Plaintiff seeks both monetary and

injunctive relief. As stated clearly in his Ppposition to

Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket 50),

Plaintiff does not seek restoration of his good time credits, nor

does he challenge the process by which his good-time credits were

reduced. Rather, one of his primary claims for relief is

injunctive relief in the form of an order reinstating his single

cell status. This claim is premised on Plaintiff’s allegations

that Defendant M.D. McDonald was deliberately indifferent to the

risks to Plaintiff’s safety when removing Plaintiff from single

cell status. However, as Defendants point out, Plaintiff was never

forcibly double-celled. Instead, he remained single-celled but

continued to lose good-time credit based on his refusal to accept

a cellmate. Those administrative actions reducing his good-time

credit have resulted in a change of Plaintiff’s release date by

seven years. Because a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor would

necessarily imply the invalidity of Plaintiff’s loss of good time

credit, which would in turn result in a recalculation of

Plaintiff’s release date, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is barred under

Heck and Balisok. Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiff’s

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 60 Filed 04/05/07 Page 4 of 5
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 ORDER REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS - 5

2:04-CV-2557-RRB-EFB-P

sole remedy is a writ of habeas corpus, and Defendants’ CrossMotion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant M.D. McDonald should be

granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations at Docket 58, filed

March 2, 2007, are adopted in part;

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 42

is DENIED;

3. Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment at

Docket 45 is GRANTED as to the due process claims against

Defendants Davey and St. Andre;

However, the Court declines to adopt the recommendation

to deny Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment as to

Defendant M.D. McDonald. Rather, as set forth above, 

4. Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment at

Docket 45 is GRANTED as to Defendant M.D. McDonald; and,

5. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

ENTERED this 4th day of April 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 60 Filed 04/05/07 Page 5 of 5