Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06486/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06486-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD K. GULBRANDSON, )

 )

)

Petitioner, )

v. )

)

YARBOROUGH, et al. )

 )

)

Respondents. )

)

____________________________________)

1:04-cv-06486-AWI-TAG-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

(Doc. 26)

 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an application for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On November 1, 2004, Petitioner filed the instant petition. (Doc. 1). On March 9, 2006,

Respondent filed his Answer. (Doc. 19). On April 3, 2006, Petitioner filed his Traverse. (Doc.

22). The case is currently awaiting a decision on the merits. 

On July 9, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Mandamus, in which he

claims that he is being illegally detained, falsely imprisoned, and that he is entitled to

compensation “for each day spent for not committing a crime that would normally be an act of

life, liberty and property under the Constitution. (Doc. 26, p. 8). Petitioner seeks a sum of

$912,500 in damages, along with costs and attorney’s fees. (Id. at p. 9). In another part of his

motion, he also demands a “full pardon.” (Id. at p. 13). 

///

Case 1:04-cv-06486-AWI-JMD Document 27 Filed 09/21/07 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

27

28 2

It is not clear from Petitioner’s motion whether he is requesting that the Court expedite

the case and immediately issue a decision in his habeas case or whether he is seeking to add a

claim to his habeas petition for monetary compensation. However, regardless of whether the

motion is interpreted as a motion to expedite the habeas decision or a request to add a claim for

money damages, the motion must be denied.

DISCUSSION

To the extent that Petitioner’s motion can be construed as a motion to expedite a decision

on the merits of his habeas petition, it must be denied. The Court does not have a separate

expedited calendar. The Court has pending hundreds of cases similar to Petitioner’s and cases

are handled in the order in which they are filed. The Court is aware of the existence of

Petitioner’s case and the length of time that it has been pending. However, due to the caseload of

the Court, and the Court’s diligent handling of each individual case, decisions often take a

considerable amount of time. The Court shall notify Petitioner as soon as any action is taken in

his case and, as long as Petitioner keeps the Court informed of his current address, he will receive

all decisions that might affect the status of his case. Petitioner’s case will be ruled on in due

course. Accordingly, the Court will deny Petitioner’s motion to the extent that it seeks an

immediate decision on the merits.

To the extent that Petitioner’s motion seeks to include a claim of monetary damages in

these habeas proceedings, that motion must also be denied. When a state prisoner is challenging

the fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that

he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from imprisonment, his sole federal

remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). The only

ground for granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus is that a petitioner “is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

There is no provision within the context of a habeas corpus proceedings to award monetary

damages for a wrongful conviction by a State. 

Case 1:04-cv-06486-AWI-JMD Document 27 Filed 09/21/07 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

27

28 3

If, as appears to be the case here, a prisoner seeks monetary damages for an allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or for other harm caused by actions the unlawfulness of which would

render a conviction or sentence invalid, he must first prove that his conviction has been

invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d

583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995). When a prisoner’s allegation implies the invalidity of his conviction

but he has not established that invalidity, his claim has not accrued. Trimble, 49 F.3d at 585. 

Here, to the extent Petitioner is seeking monetary damages for his purportedly illegal conviction

and incarceration, cannot be brought within these habeas proceedings and should, when his claim

has accrued, be brought within a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Accordingly, whether the instant motion be construed as a request to expedite a decision

on the merits or to amend the habeas petition to include a claim for monetary damages, the

motion must be denied. 

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Petitioner’s Petition for

Writ of Mandate (Doc. 26), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:04-cv-06486-AWI-JMD Document 27 Filed 09/21/07 Page 3 of 3