Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02223/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02223-0/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

27

28

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot; No Filing Fee is Due 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Jackson223dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES JACKSON, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

STATE PAROLE,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-2223 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

DENYING MOTIONS TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS MOOT; NO

FILING FEE IS DUE 

(Docket Nos. 2, 5)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 alleging a claim of false imprisonment. Plaintiff claims that in 1982 he was arrested

and spent twenty-six to twenty-seven days in jail. Plaintiff states that he was incarcerated

for failing to register under California Penal Code § 290 and given three years probation. 

Plaintiff claims that he spent 267 days on probation and then was sentenced to sixteen

months in prison for a probation violation. He served time in prison for seventy-four days

and was released with three years of parole. Plaintiff maintains that he was not convicted

of any crime and should not be on parole. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and requests

that the Court dismiss his parole term. See Complaint at 3. The Court will DISMISS the

instant complaint without prejudice because Plaintiff’s claim is barred under Heck v.

**Original filed 10/6/06**

Case 5:06-cv-02223-JF Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot; No Filing Fee is Due 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Jackson223dis 2

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis

(docket nos. 2, 5) are DENIED as moot. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) a person

was acting under the color of state law, and (2) the person committed a violation of a right

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988).

B. Plaintiff’s Claim

Plaintiff alleges that he was falsely imprisoned and is now on parole. Plaintiff

maintains that he was not convicted of any crime and should not be on parole. Plaintiff

seeks monetary damages and requests that the Court dismiss his parole term. See

Complaint at 3. However, the Court concludes that this claim is barred under Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

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 42 U.S.C. § 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. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or

Case 5:06-cv-02223-JF Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot; No Filing Fee is Due 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Jackson223dis 3

sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. 

When a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must

therefore consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily 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. at 487. Heck makes it clear that a § 1983 “cause of action for damages

attributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does not accrue until the

conviction or sentence has been invalidated.” Id. at 489-90 (footnote omitted). Any such

claim is not cognizable and therefore should be dismissed. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S.

641, 649 (1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (claim

barred by Heck may be dismissed sua sponte without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §1915).

Heck generally bars claims challenging the validity of an arrest, prosecution or

conviction. See Guerrero v. Gates, 357 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (Heck barred

plaintiff’s claims of wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy among police

officers to bring false charges against him); Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d

374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (Heck barred plaintiff’s false arrest and imprisonment claims

until conviction was invalidated); Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996)

(Heck barred plaintiff’s claims that defendants lacked probable cause to arrest him and

brought unfounded criminal charges against him). 

“Heck applies to proceedings [that] call into question the fact or duration of

parole.” Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 851

(1995). A challenge to the denial of parole, whether based upon procedural defects in the

parole hearing or upon allegations that parole was improperly denied on the merits,

directly implicates the validity of the prisoner’s continued confinement. See Butterfield

v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997). Therefore, Heck does not permit a

challenge to the procedures used in a denial of parole unless the parole board’s decision

has been reversed, expunged, set aside or called into question. See id.; Schafer v. Moore,

46 F.3d 43, 44-45 (8th Cir. 1995). Nor may a plaintiff question the validity of the

Case 5:06-cv-02223-JF Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot; No Filing Fee is Due 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Jackson223dis 4

confinement resulting from a parole-revocation hearing if he does not allege that the

parole board’s decision has been reversed, expunged, set aside or called into question. 

See Littles v. Bd. of Pardons and Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995); see also

McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995) (Heck bars

§ 1983 action challenging revocation of supervised release). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that he is being falsely imprisoned and that he is on parole

for a crime he did not commit, which necessarily implies the invalidity of the parole case

against him. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and requests that his parole term be

dismissed. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claim is barred under Heck and therefore

he fails to state a cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s

complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing a new complaint if this

parole term is later invalidated.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim

for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s pending motions for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (docket nos. 2, 5) are DENIED as moot based upon the dismissal. No

filing fee is due. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

10/4/06

Case 5:06-cv-02223-JF Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot; No Filing Fee is Due 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Jackson223dis 5

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Charles Jackson

T-83121

San Francisco County Jail -San Bruno

P.O. Box 907

C-J-7 Dorm D; Bed 44

San Bruno, CA 94066 

Case 5:06-cv-02223-JF Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 Page 5 of 5