Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01062/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01062-6/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOMINIQUE HENDRIX,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. GOMEZ, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:21-cv-01062-WBS-EFB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 

U.S. 477 (1994). ECF No. 27. For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss must be denied.

I. Background 

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s claim that defendant used excessive force against him 

on November 12, 2020. ECF No. 1 at 3, 13; ECF No. 11; ECF No. 16. Defendant submits 

documents to the court indicating that plaintiff was found guilty of a rules violation for battery on 

a peace officer as a result of the altercation. ECF No. 28 (Def.’s Request for Judicial Notice ISO 

Mot. to Dismiss).1

1

 Defendant asks the court to judicially notice the records of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation concerning plaintiff’s rules violation. ECF No. 28. Because the 

court need not consider the content those documents to determine the instant motion, the court 

declines to rule on the request for judicial notice. 

Case 2:21-cv-01062-WBS-EFB Document 31 Filed 08/19/22 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 

2

II. The Motion to Dismiss 

Defendant argues that the case must be dismissed because it is barred by Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck and its progeny, the Supreme Court held that, where a 

judgment in a prisoner’s favor on § 1983 action would necessarily imply the invalidity of the 

prisoner’s sentence or conviction, the prisoner’s claim is not cognizable until she demonstrates 

that the sentence or conviction has been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 483, 486-87. This rule 

usually applies where success in a prisoner’s civil rights suit would necessarily invalidate a 

disciplinary determination that carried a forfeiture of behavioral credits, because a finding in the 

prisoner’s favor would invalidate the credit forfeiture and thus reduce the sentence. Edwards v. 

Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644 (1997). However, where the plaintiff has been released from custody 

– and thus cannot challenge the discipline through a habeas petition because such a petition would 

be dismissed as moot – he may pursue a damages action under § 1983 even if success therein 

would imply the invalidity of the discipline and revocation of credits. Nonette v. Small, 316 F.3d 

872, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2002). See also Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584, 613 (9th Cir. 2019);

Lyall v. City of L.A., 807 F.3d 1178, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Here, the parties do not dispute that plaintiff was assessed a 150-day forfeiture of time 

credits as a result of the disciplinary determination he received after the altercation between 

plaintiff and defendant. ECF Nos. 27 at 7, 30. But it is also undisputed that plaintiff was slated 

for release on June 1, 2022. ECF No. 27 at 6; ECF No. 30. Searches of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Inmate Locator website on June 26, 2022 under 

both plaintiff’s name and inmate identification number revealed no inmate by plaintiff’s name in 

California state prison. CDCR Inmate Locator, https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/search.aspx. It 

thus appears that plaintiff is no longer incarcerated and would therefore be unable to seek reversal 

or expungement of the disciplinary finding as Heck requires, thus bringing this action within the 

exception to Heck recognized by the Ninth Circuit in Nonette. 

///// 

///// 

/////

Case 2:21-cv-01062-WBS-EFB Document 31 Filed 08/19/22 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

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

 For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that defendant’s April 4, 2022 

motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27) be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: August 19, 2022. 

Case 2:21-cv-01062-WBS-EFB Document 31 Filed 08/19/22 Page 3 of 3