Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05823/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05823-1/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

FREDERICK JONES, SR.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TERRY MICHALSKI,

Defendant. 

 /

1:04-cv-05823-REC-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 22), 

DISMISSING ACTION, AND

DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

FOR DEFENDANT

Plaintiff, Frederick Jones, Sr. (“plaintiff”), is a state

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 March 8, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On March 31, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:04-cv-05823-REC-LJO Document 24 Filed 04/18/06 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

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. 

Plaintiff concedes in his objections that he cannot proceed

with his Sixth Amendment claim because of Heck v. Humphrey. 

However, plaintiff notes, his Complaint also alleges that the

denial of access to the courts is brought under the “Fourteenth

Amendment, including due process.” Plaintiff further asserts in

his objections that “the nature of plaintiff’s charges, race &

religious ethnic gender made Senior deputy Michalski deprive

plaintiff of his secured constitutional provision” to equal

protection of the laws. However, it is clear that even under

these theories of recovery, plaintiff’s claim that defendant

unconstitutionally denied plaintiff access to his private

investigator necessarily renders plaintiff’s criminal conviction

invalid under Heck. Therefore, plaintiff cannot proceed on this

claim under Section 1983 until that criminal conviction has been

invalidated.

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds

the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record

and by proper analysis.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05823-REC-LJO Document 24 Filed 04/18/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 8, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action is DISMISSED;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment

for defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05823-REC-LJO Document 24 Filed 04/18/06 Page 3 of 3