Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00377/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00377-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

L.M. DANIELS, II, 

Plaintiff,

v.

LEDGER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00377-SKO (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED BY 

HECK V. HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) 

(Doc. 1)

21-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, L.M. Daniels, II, is in custody at the Fresno County Jail, proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff complains that 

he was wrongly found in violation of parole and thereafter taken into custody. 

When an inmate challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a 

constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a 

writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 

(9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an 

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, "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." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 

U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). "A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or 

sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983." Id. at 488. 

Case 1:16-cv-00377-SKO Document 7 Filed 01/30/17 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

27

28

2

The Complaint does not contain any allegations to show that Plaintiff's finding of parole 

violation has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a writ of 

habeas corpus. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the date 

of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be 

dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Failure to respond to this 

order will result in dismissal of this action, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00377-SKO Document 7 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 2