Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05790/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05790-0/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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Healy790dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN H. HEALY, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5790 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS MOOT

(Docket No. 4)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Plaintiff claims that he was incarcerated thirty days beyond his legal release date

and ten days past his complete discharge of parole. Plaintiff was released from prison on

June 19, 2007. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for each day he was illegally held in

custody beyond his release date. The Court will DISMISS the instant complaint without

prejudice because Plaintiff’s claim is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

(1994). Plaintiff’s second motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 4) is DENIED

as moot because Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a

separate written order. 

/// 

Case 5:07-cv-05790-JF Document 9 Filed 04/09/08 Page 1 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Healy790dis 2

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) a person

was acting under the color of state law, and (2) the person committed a violation of a right

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988).

B. Plaintiff’s Claim

Plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully held in custody thirty days beyond his legal

release date and ten days past his complete discharge of parole. Plaintiff was released

from prison on June 19, 2007. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for each day he was

illegally held in custody beyond his release date. See Complaint at 3-4. However, the

Court concludes that this claim is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

In 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 42 U.S.C. § 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, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or

sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. 

When a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must

Case 5:07-cv-05790-JF Document 9 Filed 04/09/08 Page 2 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Healy790dis 3

therefore 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. at 487. Heck makes it clear that a § 1983 “cause of action for damages

attributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does not accrue until the

conviction or sentence has been invalidated.” Id. at 489-90 (footnote omitted). Any such

claim is not cognizable and therefore should be dismissed. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S.

641, 649 (1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (claim

barred by Heck may be dismissed sua sponte without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §1915).

Heck generally bars claims challenging the validity of an arrest, prosecution or

conviction. See Guerrero v. Gates, 357 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (Heck barred

plaintiff’s claims of wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy among police

officers to bring false charges against him); Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d

374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (Heck barred plaintiff’s false arrest and imprisonment claims

until conviction was invalidated); Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996)

(Heck barred plaintiff’s claims that defendants lacked probable cause to arrest him and

brought unfounded criminal charges against him). Heck bars a claim of unconstitutional

deprivation of time credits because such a claim necessarily calls into question the

lawfulness of the plaintiff’s continuing confinement, i.e., it implicates the duration of the

plaintiff’s sentence. Sheldon v. Hundley, 83 F.3d 231, 233 (8th Cir. 1996). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully held in state prison beyond his legal 

release date, which necessarily implies the invalidity of the duration of his term of

confinement in his underlying state criminal proceedings. Plaintiff seeks monetary

damages for each day he was unlawfully held in custody beyond his release date. The

Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claim is barred under Heck and therefore he fails to state

a cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint is

DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing a new complaint if his underlying

conviction or sentence is later invalidated.

Case 5:07-cv-05790-JF Document 9 Filed 04/09/08 Page 3 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Healy790dis 4

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim

for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (docket no. 4) is DENIED as moot because Plaintiff has been granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis in a separate written order. The Clerk shall terminate all

pending motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

4/8/08

Case 5:07-cv-05790-JF Document 9 Filed 04/09/08 Page 4 of 4