(PC) Zaragoza v. Carrillo

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PAUL ZARAGOZA, Case No. 1:19-cv-01752-NONE-JDP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED 12 v. BY THE FAVORABLE-TERMINATION RULE D. CARRILLO, et al.

FORTY-FIVE-DAY DEADLINE 14 Defendants.

16 Plaintiff Paul Zaragoza is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action. Plaintiff argues that prison officials filed a false rules-violation report against him, leading to worse housing and a loss of good-time credits. ECF No. 1 at 3. He requests money damages. Id. at 6.

20 Habeas relief (or a similar action) is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). Even if plaintiff wishes to obtain relief other than a reduction in his sentence—relief that might properly be channeled through a civil rights complaint rather than a habeas petition—plaintiff would first need to show that his sentence has been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. This logic applies not just to the original conviction and sentence, but also to internal prison procedures that affect good-time credits. Here, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 27 641, 648 (1997), squarely applies: “[A] claim for declaratory relief and money damages, based on allegations of deceit and bias on the part of the decisionmaker that necessarily imply the | invalidity of the punishment imposed [like the loss of good-time credits], is not cognizable under 1 § 1983.”

3 Accordingly, the court orders plaintiff to demonstrate that the prison procedure resulting | in plaintiff being re-housed and losing credits has been invalidated. If plaintiff cannot, we will || recommend that his claims be dismissed as barred by the so-called favorable-termination rule of | Heck vy. Humphrey, as applied in cases like Edwards v. Balisok.

7 Plaintiff may wish to file an action in state court—rather than one here in federal court— | challenging the outcome of the prison’s procedure. If plaintiff succeeds in such a state court | action, he may then become eligible for relief in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

10 | ORDER 11 1. Plaintiff has forty-five days to show cause why his claim should not be dismissed as | barred by the favorable-termination rule.

13 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action.

1s IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 ( Caan Dated: _ April 3, 2020 17 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | No. 205.