Samuel L. Caldwell v. Torrance L. Porch et al
Filing
2
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE ANNOUNCED IN HECK v. HUMPHREY. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within fourteen (14) daysof the date of this Order (06/05/12), why his claims are not barred by the doctrine announced in Heck v. Humphrey. (See Minute Order for further details) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Dismissal) (afe)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-3129 UA (SS)
Date: May 22, 2012
Page 1 of 3
Title:
Samuel L. Caldwell v. Torrance L. Porch, et al.,
DOCKET ENTRY: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
ARE NOT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE ANNOUNCED IN
HECK v. HUMPHREY
PRESENT:
HONORABLE SUZANNE H. SEGAL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jacob Yerke
Deputy Clerk
None
Court Reporter/Recorder
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
None Present
None
Tape No.
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)
On April 10, 2012, Samuel L. Caldwell (“Plaintiff”), a California state prisoner
proceeding pro se, submitted a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the
“Complaint”) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). However, Plaintiff’s
claims in the Complaint appear to be barred by the doctrine announced in Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994).
In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a §1983 complaint must be dismissed if
judgment in favor of the plaintiff would undermine the validity of his conviction or sentence,
unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been
invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.
[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would
render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-3129 UA (SS)
Date: May 22, 2012
Page 2 of 3
Title:
Samuel L. Caldwell v. Torrance L. Porch, et al.,
executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction
or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.
Id. at 486-87 (footnote and citation omitted); see also Lockett v. Ericson, 656 F.3d 893, 896
(9th Cir. 2011).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested and charged with making
terrorist threats based on a false police report filed by Officer Torrance L. Porch. (Complaint
at 1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Officer Porch conspired with officers from both the
Compton and Hawthorne Police Departments to have Plaintiff arrested and charged on false
grounds. (Id. at 5-6). However, Plaintiff also asserts that “no charges were ever filed against
[him] because [the defendants] never submitted the allegations to the District Attorney’s
Office.” (Id. at 5). Thus, it is unclear whether Plaintiff was ever prosecuted and/or convicted
for the conduct related to his claims. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in Wasco State
Prison, but the Complaint does not identify the basis for Plaintiff’s current sentence.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within fourteen (14) days
of the date of this Order, why his claims are not barred by the doctrine announced in Heck
v. Humphrey. Plaintiff may satisfy this Order by filing a declaration, signed under penalty
of perjury, explaining the basis of his current conviction for which he is incarcerated.
Plaintiff should specifically state whether he was ever prosecuted and/or convicted for the
conduct related to his claims and whether that conviction has been set aside or reversed.
Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file a Response will result
in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
\\
\\
\\
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-3129 UA (SS)
Date: May 22, 2012
Page 3 of 3
Title:
Samuel L. Caldwell v. Torrance L. Porch, et al.,
Instead of filing a response, if Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, he
may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a notice of dismissal in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). A sample notice is attached to this Order.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff at his
current address of record.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk ___
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
