Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01401-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRANCE SYKES, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. RIOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01401-KES-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

(Doc. No. 6)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Correct Status of Claimant and Strike 

the First Informational Order from the Record” filed December 6, 2024. (Doc. No. 6, “Motion”). 

Plaintiff proceeds in the above-captioned action on his pro se complaint filed pursuant to Bivens 

vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Doc. No. 1). 

Plaintiff contends, despite being confined in the United States Penitentiary, Atwater, that 

he is not a prisoner or civil detainee as referenced by the Court in its First Informational Order. 

(See generally Doc. No. 6). Plaintiff claims he was “seized and detained through fraud and 

corruption committed by law enforcement officers and officers of the court” and requests this 

Court to correct his status to reflect that he is not a prisoner, and to strike the Court’s November 

15, 2025 First Informational Order that refers to Plaintiff as a prisoner for purposes of this action. 

(Id.).

Case 1:24-cv-01401-KES-HBK Document 9 Filed 12/20/24 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

The Court takes judicial notice1that, in October 2006, a jury in the Western District of 

New York (W.D.N.Y.) found Plaintiff guilty of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or 

more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) (“Count One”); 

possession of more than five grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (“Count 

Two”); and felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) 

(“Count Four”). (Case No. 6:05-cr-06057-CJS-MWP, Jury Verdict, Oct. 6, 2006, Crim. Doc. 

Nos. 133 & 134). Further, the W.D.N.Y court of conviction entered judgment and sentenced 

Plaintiff in March 2007 to concurrent mandatory minimum sentences of life imprisonment for 

Count One, 240 months (twenty years) for Count Two, and 120 months (ten years) for Count 

Four. (Crim. Doc. No. 150). In May 2020, the W.D. N.Y. court of conviction reduced Plaintiff’s 

sentences under the First Step Act to 360 months (30 years) for Count One, and 36 months (3 

years) for Count Two, to run concurrent to the 120 months (ten years) for Court Four. (Crim. 

Doc. No. 288). Under the federal Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a “prisoner” is 

defined as “any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, 

sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and 

conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 42 U.S.C. § 

1997e(h). Consequently, despite Plaintiff’s protestations to the contrary, Plaintiff is incarcerated

and thus falls within the definition of “prisoner” as defined by the PLRA. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No.6) is DENIED.

Dated: December 20, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits a court to take judicial notice of facts that are “not subject to 

reasonable dispute” because they are either “generally known within the trial court's territorial 

jurisdiction,” or they “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot 

reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The Court may take judicial notice on its own or at the 

request of any party. Id. 201(c). It is well established that a court can take judicial notice of its own files 

and records under Rule 201. Molus v. Swan, No. 05cv452–MMA (WMc), 2009 WL 160937, *2 (S.D. Cal.

Jan. 22, 2009).

Case 1:24-cv-01401-KES-HBK Document 9 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 2