Jackson v. Borla

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 11, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-04304
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DERRICK EUGENE JACKSON, Case No. 25-cv-04304-NW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING AND 9 v. DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 EDWARD J. BORLA, et al.,

Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Derrick Eugene Jackson, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint 14 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF No. 4. Jackson’s application for leave to proceed in forma 15 pauperis has been granted in a separate order. The Court has screened Jackson’s Complaint; for 16 the reasons set forth below, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing a 17 habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Jackson alleges that his sentence is invalid based on changes to his release date. See ECF 20 No. 4 at 3. Jackson was notified of two changes by letter on September 6, 2022, and June 24, 21 2024, with the latter referencing a “calculation correction.” ECF No. 4 at 3. Jackson alleges that 22 he received a 10-year credit and a potential release date of June 20, 2018, with a maximum date of 23 November 28, 2019, which means that he should have been released from prison. Id. He also 24 alleges that his sentence became invalid due to a change in law on June 30, 2022. Id. 25 Jackson names Division of Adult Institutions correctional case records analysts, 26 A. Digirolamo and R. Epps, as well as the following Folsom State Prison employees, as 27 Defendants: S. Haili, case records analyst; J. Gelein, counselor; C. Evans, counselor; P. Crosby, 1 the dismissal of his convictions, and damages. Id. at 3. 2 II. DISCUSSION 3 This action was filed as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which is the proper 4 vehicle to challenge conditions of confinement. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 5 1991). Review of the complaint, however, shows that Jackson is seeking his immediate release 6 and the dismissal of his criminal convictions. ECF No. 4 at 4. Civil rights claims under 7 Section 1983 cannot be used to obtain release from custody or dismissal of state convictions; 8 rather, Jackson is “[c]halleng[ing] . . . the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its 9 duration,” which is “the province of habeas corpus.” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 10 (2006) (quotations omitted). Habeas corpus “is the exclusive remedy . . . for the prisoner who 11 seeks ‘immediate or speedier release’ from confinement.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 525 12 (2011) (citation omitted). A district court is generally discouraged from converting a civil rights 13 action to a habeas petition to ensure that any petition filed by a prisoner contains all relevant 14 information and claims for relief. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 15 1995). Rather, the Ninth Circuit has instructed that a civil rights complaint seeking habeas relief 16 should be dismissed without prejudice to filing a habeas petition. Id.1 Accordingly, to the extent 17 Jackson seeks his immediate release, he must do so by filing a habeas petition pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 In addition, although Jackson seeks monetary damages, a plaintiff in a Section 1983 action 20 cannot obtain damages for unlawful imprisonment unless the conviction or sentence for which he 21 is imprisoned “has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid 22 by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal 23 court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 24 487 (1994). While the Heck bar is an affirmative defense, because this is an action covered by the 25 Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the Court is required to dismiss the complaint sua sponte 26 if it concludes a Heck bar defeats the plaintiff’s claim. Hebrard v. Nofziger, 90 F.4th 1000, 1007 27 1 (9th Cir. 2024). Here, given that Jackson is still in custody pursuant to an underlying state 2 || criminal judgment and he is presently seeking his release and the dismissal of his convictions, his 3 || civil rights claims for damages are barred until he can show that the conviction or sentence. 4 I. CONCLUSION 5 The Court orders as follows: 6 1. Jackson’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to him seeking 7 relief through a habeas corpus petition. 8 2. The Clerk is requested to send a copy of a blank 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus 9 form to Jackson with a copy of this Order. 10 3. The Clerk shall close the file. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: July 11, 2025 , Ye bin hid. 4 Noél Wise United States District Judge

2 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28