Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01052/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01052-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH A. SHERMAN, No. CIV-S-05-1052 MCE/DAD PS

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

COUNTY OF YOLO, ET AL., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled

action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On July 5, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice that any objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01052-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 11/04/05 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

 Although he has filed objections, plaintiff has yet to 1

file an amended complaint as directed by the magistrates judge’s

order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. (See

Order filed May 27, 2005.) Additionally, plaintiff’s objections

suggest that with this action he is seeking damages in connection

with unspecified convictions that resulted in periods of

confinement at the Yolo County Detention Facility, where

plaintiff is now confined. However, plaintiff may not seek

damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in connection with a challenge to

the basis for his confinement until he has established, by

appropriate state or federal remedy, that his continued

confinement is invalid. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-

87 (1994); Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1025 (9th Cir.

1997). Plaintiff’s objections do not indicate that he has been

successful in having his commitment reversed on direct appeal,

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal

authorized to make such a determination or called into question

by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck,

512 U.S. at 486-87. Therefore, any claim for damages by

plaintiff would be barred at this time. 

2

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

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case and has considered plaintiff’s

objections. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court

finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the

record and by proper analysis. The court has determined that

there is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based

on the points raised by plaintiff.1

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01052-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 11/04/05 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 5, 2005, are

adopted in full; 

2. This matter is dismissed without prejudice; and

3. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

DATED: November 3, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01052-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 11/04/05 Page 3 of 3