Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02267/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02267-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Ronnie O’Neal Brown,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Edward S. Alameida, Jr., et

al.,

Defendants.

No. Civ. S-03-2267 FCD PAN P

Order

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a

civil rights action. 

April 7, 2005, the court granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismissed the original complaint as failing to

comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The court granted plaintiff leave

to amend the pleading.

April 29, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended complaint

claiming defendants violated his constitutional right to due

Case 2:03-cv-02267-FCD-PAN Document 12 Filed 05/11/05 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

2

process in connection with parole revocation proceedings. It

appears plaintiff presently is confined due to defendants’

revocation of his parole in the challenged proceedings. 

Plaintiff seeks damages. 

In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional

conviction or imprisonment (including a prison disciplinary

violation), or for other harm caused by actions whose

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, 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. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a

conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not

cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a state prisoner seeks

damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider

whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily

imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would,

the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can

demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been

invalidated. Id.

A judgment in plaintiff’s favor would necessarily imply the

invalidity of his continued incarceration.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders plaintiff to show

cause, within 30 days of service of this order, why this action

Case 2:03-cv-02267-FCD-PAN Document 12 Filed 05/11/05 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

is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). He may

satisfy the order to show cause by filing a petition for habeas

corpus, which would supercede prior pleading but would be subject

to the requirement plaintiff exhaust state judicial remedies.

Dated: May 10, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02267-FCD-PAN Document 12 Filed 05/11/05 Page 3 of 3