Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01622/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01622-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE LEE BURNS, JR.,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 1622 AWI AWI WMW P 

vs. ORDER RE: FINDINGS & 

 RECOMMENDATIONS (#16)

JANE OLMOS, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________/

Plaintiff is a Fresno County Jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action. 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 August 1, 2006 findings and recommendations were entered, recommending

dismissal of this action without prejudice to the filing of an application for a writ of habeas

corpus. The court found that Plaintiff’s claims challenged the validity of his conviction. The

court specifically noted that a constitutional challenge that would entitle Plaintiff to an earlier

release must be brought as a habeas petition. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). 

Plaintiff claims that he was convicted based upon coerced confession and that he was sentenced

based upon a conviction that a jury found him not guilty of. Plaintiff was provided an

opportunity to file objections within thirty days. On August 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed objections

Case 1:05-cv-01622-AWI-WMW Document 18 Filed 01/03/07 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

2

to the findings and recommendations.

In his objections, Plaintiff indicates that he is proceeding with an application for a

writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff contends that this action should not be dismissed, as he is

seeking monetary damages, not an earlier release. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),

the Supreme Court reviewed whether a prisoner could bring a section 1983 action to challenge

his conviction. The Supreme Court recognized that section 1983 actions, like civil tort actions,

are not appropriate vehicles to challenge the validity of outstanding criminal judgments if such a

challenge necessarily requires the plaintiff to prove the unlawfulness of his conviction. Id. at

486. The Supreme Court concluded that:

[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, 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, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Id. at 486-87 (footnote omitted). Until such time as the plaintiff’s conviction is invalidated, a

cause of action under section 1983 for damages is not cognizable. See id. Because Plaintiff’s

allegations are a challenge to the validity of his conviction, this case must be dismissed,

regardless of whether Plaintiff seeks an earlier release, because Plaintiff cannot show that his

conviction has been overturned. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

73-305, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

proper analysis. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on August

1, 2006, are adopted in full; and

Case 1:05-cv-01622-AWI-WMW Document 18 Filed 01/03/07 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

3

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to pursue his

claims in an application for writ of habeas corpus. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01622-AWI-WMW Document 18 Filed 01/03/07 Page 3 of 3