Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00599/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00599-2/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

ANTONIO WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KERN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00599-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 9)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Antonio Williams (“plaintiff”), is a prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 May 31, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and a

Recommendation herein which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On

June 13, 2007, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:06-cv-00599-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 2
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) 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 Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The

objections do not provide a basis to not adopt the Findings and

Recommendation. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, pursuant

to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not an appropriate vehicle 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. 

[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 Plaintiff’s

conviction is invalidated, this action for damages is not

cognizable. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed May 31, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00599-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 2