Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00819/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00819-4/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY TYRONE FOSTER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRESNO COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00819-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION IS

NOT MOOT

Ricky Tyrone Foster (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff sues various individuals for their

failure to disclose information, and Plaintiff requests an

injunction requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiff with

materials Plaintiff believes would have assisted him in his

criminal 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 July 18, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recommended the complaint be dismissed

Case 1:06-cv-00819-AWI -SMS Document 20 Filed 10/19/06 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 On September 17, 2006, an Order of Recusal issued transferring this 1

case from Oliver W. Wanger to the undersigned. (Court Doc. 19.) 

2

because the complaint challenged the legality of Plaintiff’s

custody and no civil rights action was available until

Plaintiff’s conviction was invalidated on habeas corpus review.

The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and

contained notice that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20) days. On

August 8, 2006, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.1

In his objections, Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge

erred in recommencing the sua sponte dismissal of this civil

rights action. In this action, Plaintiff seeks to compel

defendants to provide him with, or account for, various evidence

pertaining to his state conviction. Based on recent case

authority, Plaintiff may have a cause of action to seek such

information.

Pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), this

court must dismiss an action that would necessarily imply the

invalidity of Plaintiff’s state court conviction. See Heck, 512

U.S. at 487. However, recently the Ninth Circuit found that

Heck does not preclude a Section 1983 action seeking to compel

the state to release certain evidence. The Ninth Circuit

reasoned that success would only yield access to evidence, which,

in and of itself, “would not necessarily demonstrate the

invalidity of confinement....” Osborne v. District Attorney's

Office for the Third Judicial District, 423 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th

Cir.2005) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005)).

Case 1:06-cv-00819-AWI -SMS Document 20 Filed 10/19/06 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

Because Plaintiff seeks only the release, or accounting, of

potentially exculpatory evidence, success on the merits may not

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction.

Accordingly, this action cannot be dismissed at this stage

under Heck. However, a review of the docket and other filings

in this court indicates that this action may have been moot. 

The court takes judicial notice of Foster v. Garcia, CV F 99-5748

OWW DLB HC. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(court may take notice of

facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by

resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

questioned); Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385,

1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); (court may take judicial notice of

court records). Foster v. Garcia is a federal habeas corpus

petition that Plaintiff has brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 A review of the docket in Foster v. Garcia reveals that

Plaintiff has obtained significant discovery in that case. It

appears the discovery Plaintiff has received or will soon receive

in Foster v. Garcia is duplicative of the records Plaintiff seeks

in this action. As such, this action, in which Plaintiff seeks

to obtain records, appears moot. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff IS HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE

within thirty days of this order’s date of service why this

action should not be dismissed as moot. Plaintiff is FOREWARNED

that failure to comply with this order will result in this

action’s dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00819-AWI -SMS Document 20 Filed 10/19/06 Page 3 of 3