Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05123/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05123-3/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

LOUIS RICHARD FRESQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MOEROYK, 

Defendant. 

 /

1:04-cv-05123-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 8)

ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION

Plaintiff, Louis Richard Fresquez (“plaintiff”), a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this

civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On November 16, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On December 13, 2005 and February 28, 2006, respectively,

plaintiff filed a motion to extend time. On February 7, 2006 and

March 15, 2006, respectively, the court granted plaintiff an

Case 1:04-cv-05123-AWI -GSA Document 20 Filed 05/30/06 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

additional thirty (30) days within which to respond. On April

14, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. In his objections, Plaintiff

alleges that he has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for

relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the

Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). The elements of a claim under the ADA

are RA are: (1) that the plaintiff is a handicapped person; (2)

that he is otherwise qualified; and (3) that the defendants'

actions either (a) excluded his participation in or denied him

the benefits of a service, program, or activity; or (b) otherwise

subjected him to discrimination on the basis of his physical or

mental handicap. Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 455 (9th

Cir.1996). In other words, plaintiff must allege that he was

denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of

the prison, or has been subjected to discrimination because of

his alleged disability. Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th

Cir.1997). In the objections, Plaintiff correctly argues that

Prison "programs or activities" includes disciplinary hearings. 

Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 455 (9th Cir.1996).

However, regardless of whether actions taken at a

disciplinary hearing fall within the ADA/RA, Plaintiff must first

have the findings made at the disciplinary hearing set aside

prior to filing any claim under the ADA/RA. Any ruling favorable

to Plaintiff on the merits of his ADA/RA Claim would necessarily

imply the invalidity of the disciplinary finding. If a claim

Case 1:04-cv-05123-AWI -GSA Document 20 Filed 05/30/06 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

under the ADA/RA challenges the duration of confinement, the

prisoner's sole federal remedy is the writ of habeas corpus.

Bogovich v. Sandoval, 189 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1999). Thus, the

claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 87, 114

S.Ct. 2364 (1994 (to recover damages for unconstitutional

imprisonment, prisoner must show that the sentence has been

invalidated).

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds

the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record

and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 16,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05123-AWI -GSA Document 20 Filed 05/30/06 Page 3 of 3