Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01452/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01452-1/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

Ron Lee,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 05-1452 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

Stephen Mayburg, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff, presently detained pending civil commitment

proceedings, is prosecuting this civil rights action without

counsel and in forma pauperis. He has filed a complaint and a

motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining jail staff from

retaliating against him for filing this action.

Plaintiff claims his right to due process was violated in

conjunction with proceedings resulting in his civil commitment as

a sexually violent predator. Plaintiff alleges one of the

psychologists who diagnosed him was not licensed and that the

Case 2:05-cv-01452-FCD-PAN Document 12 Filed 11/23/05 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

psychologist’s finding plaintiff was likely to engage in acts of

sexual violence without treatment is not supported by the evidence.

He seeks damages and injunctive relief in the form of immediate

release.

To recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional confinement

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. 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. Regardless of the relief sought 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.; Wilkinson v.

Dotson, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (2005). The rule applies to

§ 1983 challenges to proceedings under California’s Sexually

Violent Predator Act. Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136,

1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (claim that only one evaluator found plaintiff

likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior

Heck-barred because statute requires such finding by two

Case 2:05-cv-01452-FCD-PAN Document 12 Filed 11/23/05 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

evaluators).

Accordingly, plaintiff shall, within 30 days of service of

this order, explain in writing why this action is not barred by

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff may correct this

defect by showing a finding in his favor will not result in his

immediate release. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (2005).

Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation

his claims for damages be dismissed and the request for injunctive

relief being transferred to the appropriate venue. See Huftile,

410 F.3d at 1142 (dismissing claims for damages and declaratory

relief and remanding claim for injunctive relief pursuant to

Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995)

(per curiam)).

Dated: November 22, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01452-FCD-PAN Document 12 Filed 11/23/05 Page 3 of 3