(PC) Lewis v. Clark

E.D. California

(PC) Lewis v. Clark

DecidedJanuary 29, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-00120

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Lewis v. Clark ((PC) Lewis v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Lewis v. Clark, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PAUL DIXON LEWIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00120-JDP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED 12 v. BY THE FAVORABLE-TERMINATION RULE 13 KEN CLARK, et al. FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 14 Defendants. ORDER ASSIGNING THIS CASE TO A 15 DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 Plaintiff Paul Dixon Lewis is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action 18 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff argues that his prison sentence is unlawful and requests 19 compensation for his allegedly illegal incarceration. See ECF No. 1 at 4. But habeas relief— 20 which petitioner does not now seek—is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner challenging the fact 21 or duration of his confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). Even if 22 plaintiff wishes to obtain some sort of relief for his allegedly illegal incarceration other than 23 release—relief that might properly be channeled through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than a habeas 24 petition—plaintiff would first need to show that his underlying conviction had been invalidated. 25 See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Accordingly, the court orders plaintiff to make such a demonstration. 26 If he cannot, we will recommend that this civil rights case be dismissed as barred by the so-called 27 favorable-termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey. 28 ORDER 1 Plaintiff has fourteen days to show cause why his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint should not 2 | be dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Plaintiff may make this showing by demonstrating 3 | that his underlying conviction has been invalidated. Failure to comply with this order may result 4 | in dismissal of this action. 5 The clerk of court is ordered to assign this case to a district judge. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Vy 26, —N prssann — Dated: _ January 28, 2020 9 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 | No. 205. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PAUL DIXON LEWIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00120-JDP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED 12 v. BY THE FAVORABLE-TERMINATION RULE 13 KEN CLARK, et al. FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 14 Defendants. ORDER ASSIGNING THIS CASE TO A 15 DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 Plaintiff Paul Dixon Lewis is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action 18 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff argues that his prison sentence is unlawful and requests 19 compensation for his allegedly illegal incarceration. See ECF No. 1 at 4. But habeas relief— 20 which petitioner does not now seek—is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner challenging the fact 21 or duration of his confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). Even if 22 plaintiff wishes to obtain some sort of relief for his allegedly illegal incarceration other than 23 release—relief that might properly be channeled through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than a habeas 24 petition—plaintiff would first need to show that his underlying conviction had been invalidated. 25 See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Accordingly, the court orders plaintiff to make such a demonstration. 26 If he cannot, we will recommend that this civil rights case be dismissed as barred by the so-called 27 favorable-termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey. 28 ORDER 1 Plaintiff has fourteen days to show cause why his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint should not 2 | be dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Plaintiff may make this showing by demonstrating 3 | that his underlying conviction has been invalidated. Failure to comply with this order may result 4 | in dismissal of this action. 5 The clerk of court is ordered to assign this case to a district judge. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Vy 26, —N prssann — Dated: _ January 28, 2020 9 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 | No. 205. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Lewis v. Clark, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-lewis-v-clark-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack