Garcia v. Superior Court of California, County of Orange

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JIMMY M. GARCIA, Case No. 1:19-cv-01636-LJO-JDP 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED UNDER 12 v. THE FAVORABLE-TERMINATION RULE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS COUNTY OF ORANGE, et al.

14 ORDER THAT THE CLERK’S OFFICE Defendants. SEND PLAINTIFF AN APPLICATION FOR 15 A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 17 Plaintiff Jimmy M. Garcia is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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. On January 8, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why his action should not be barred by the favorable-termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff’s response to this order reiterates his arguments that he is innocent and that there were problems with his trial. See ECF No. 7 at 1-2. Because plaintiff has failed to show that his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not barred by Heck, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.

25 Plaintiff may wish to file a petition for habeas corpus. If so, 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 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.

2 | FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 The court recommends that this action be dismissed under the favorable-termination rule | of Heck v. Humphrey.

5 | ORDER 6 The clerk’s office is ordered to send plaintiff an application form for a writ of habeas | corpus.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

y_5U, —N prssann — Dated: _ January 30, 2020 11 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | No. 205.