United States District Court, C.D. California
November 24, 2014
Riverside Sheriffs et al
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Not Present.
Attorneys for Defendant: Not Present.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Honorable Kenly Kiya Kato, United States Magistrate Judge.
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order To Show Cause Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Challenging the Validity of Plaintiff's Conviction
On November 10, 2014, Plaintiff Larry Bailey, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" Complaint"). In the Complaint, Plaintiff asks to have his " name clear[ed] for what I did not do." ECF No. 5 at 2. Plaintiff states he is " innocent" of the charge for which he was convicted,  and that he is the victim of a white supremacist conspiracy. Id. at 3. Under the section of the Complaint to explain whether he has exhausted administrative remedies, Plaintiff states that his last " level of appeal" was California Supreme Court case number S221150. Id. at 2. According to the California courts' online database, that case number refers to Plaintiff's state habeas corpus petition, which the California Supreme Court denied on November 19, 2014. Based on these facts, the Complaint appears to challenge Plaintiff's conviction.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus " is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (citation omitted). " [A] state prisoner's § 1983 action is barred" if " success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration, " except where the prisoner's conviction has already been invalidated. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005). Because the Complaint challenges the validity of Plaintiff's conviction, and because the conviction has not already been invalidated, this action is barred.
Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order why the Court should not dismiss his Complaint for challenging the validity of his conviction.
As an alternative, Plaintiff may, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, request a voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal Form is attached for Plaintiff's convenience.
The Court warns Plaintiff that failure to file a timely response to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.