Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01636/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01636-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

JIMMY M. GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 

COUNTY OF ORANGE, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01636-LJO-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED 

BY THE FAVORABLE-TERMINATION 

RULE

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

ORDER VACATING THE COURT’S 

SUMMONS AND PREVIOUS SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

ECF Nos. 2, 3

Plaintiff Jimmy M. Garcia is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action. 

Plaintiff argues that he is innocent of the crime for which he was convicted, and claims that there 

were evidentiary problems at his trial. See ECF No. 1. While plaintiff does not specifically state 

what relief he seeks, I believe he is seeking a release from prison. See id. at 6 (“I am seeking 

relief and justice [for] my innocen[ce].”). Thus, while plaintiff has filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint form, he may need instead to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas relief 

is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his confinement and 

seeking an immediate or speedier release. See, e.g., Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 

(1994). Should plaintiff wish to file a new petition for habeas corpus, that petition should comply 

with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, including the requirement of § 2254(b)(1)(A) that the 

petitioner has first “exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State” in which he was 

Case 1:19-cv-01636-DAD-JDP Document 4 Filed 01/08/20 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

convicted. In other words, before he is able to receive relief here in federal court, plaintiff must 

have finished the appeals process in his state of conviction. 

Even if plaintiff wishes to obtain relief other than his release—relief that might properly 

be channeled through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than a habeas petition—plaintiff would first need 

to show that his underlying conviction has been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.

Accordingly, I order plaintiff to make such a demonstration. If he cannot, I will recommend that 

this civil rights case be dismissed as barred by the so-called favorable-termination rule of Heck v. 

Humphrey. 

ORDER

Plaintiff has fourteen days to show cause why his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint should not 

be dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Plaintiff may make this showing by demonstrating 

that his underlying conviction has been invalidated. Failure to comply with this order may result 

in dismissal of this action. 

The summons and new case documents issued in this case, ECF Nos. 2, 3, were issued in 

error and are hereby vacated. 

No. 205.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01636-DAD-JDP Document 4 Filed 01/08/20 Page 2 of 2