Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00242/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00242-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ANTONIO ROMANCORREA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00242-NONE-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIMS

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED 

BY THE FAVORABLE-TERMINATION 

RULE

ORDER THAT, IF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT 

WISH TO PURSUE AN APPLICATION FOR 

HABEAS CORPUS, HE FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

ORDER THAT THE CLERK’S OFFICE 

SEND PLAINTIFF AN APPLICATION FOR 

A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Plaintiff Antonio Romancorrea is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 

rights action.

1

 Plaintiff argues that his conviction and sentence are unlawful, and requests relief 

“for being incarcerated for the crime that [he] did not commit.” ECF No. 1 at 6. 

Habeas relief is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his 

confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). Even if plaintiff wishes to 

obtain relief other than his release—relief that might properly be channeled through a civil rights 

complaint rather than a habeas petition—plaintiff would first need to show that his underlying 

 

1 On the first page of plaintiff’s complaint form, he has not filled in any of the boxes indicating 

how the court has jurisdiction over the action. ECF No. 1 at 1. 

Case 1:20-cv-00242-JLT-HBK Document 2 Filed 03/24/20 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

conviction has been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Accordingly, the court orders

plaintiff to make such a demonstration. If he cannot, we will recommend that his claims be 

dismissed as barred by the so-called favorable-termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey. 

Instead of filing this lawsuit, plaintiff may wish to file a petition for habeas corpus. If so, 

that petition should comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, including the requirement 

of § 2254(b)(1)(A) that the petitioner has first “exhausted the remedies available in the courts of 

the State” in which he was convicted. In other words, before he is able to receive relief here in 

federal court, plaintiff must have finished the appeals process in his state of conviction. 

The court notes that plaintiff’s complaint includes brief allegations that he has limited law 

library access, lives in a facility that has leaks, and works in a kitchen space that is dirty and 

slippery. See ECF No. 1 at 5. These allegations are different from the main thrust of plaintiff’s 

complaint—which concerns his conviction and incarceration—and, standing along, they are 

insufficient to state a claim. They do not identify any defendants that have deprived plaintiff of a 

right. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for example, a plaintiff must show that a 

defendant acting under color of state law caused an alleged deprivation of a right secured by 

federal law. See Soo Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 921 (9th Cir. 2017). 

More broadly, a complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is 

entitled to relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility 

standard does not require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than 

the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint 

need not identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 

1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations 

that give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 

1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

Should plaintiff wish to pursue a claim that prison officials have deprived him of a federal 

right—and, again, the court believes plaintiff is primarily interested in challenging the fact of his 

Case 1:20-cv-00242-JLT-HBK Document 2 Filed 03/24/20 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

conviction or incarceration—he must submit an amended complaint that makes those allegations 

in more detail. 

ORDER

1. Plaintiff has thirty days to show cause why his central claim of illegal incarceration 

should not be dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Plaintiff may make this showing by 

demonstrating that his underlying conviction has been invalidated. 

2. Alternatively, or in addition, plaintiff may wish to file an amended complaint that 

focuses on alleged constitutional deprivations in his prison. Any amended complaint will 

supersede the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 

2012) (en banc), and it must be complete on its face without reference to the prior, superseded 

pleading, see E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the original 

complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in 

an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the 

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

3. The clerk’s office is ordered to send plaintiff an application form for a writ of habeas 

corpus.

4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205.

Case 1:20-cv-00242-JLT-HBK Document 2 Filed 03/24/20 Page 3 of 3