(PC) Sprinkle v. Robinson, et al, No. 2:2002cv01563 - Document 157 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/7/2014. The 8/6/2014 154 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS are NOT ADOPTED at this time. This matter is REFERRED back to Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan for further proceedings. (Marciel, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Sprinkle v. Robinson, et al Doc. 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK WAYNE SPRINKLE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:02-cv-1563-JAM-EFB P v. ORDER LEON ROBINSON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 6, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendant has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. For the reasons set forth below, the court 26 declines to adopt the findings and recommendations at this time and, instead, refers the matter 27 back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 This action arises from defendants’ violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment right of 2 access to the courts by denying plaintiff copies of documents supporting a state court habeas 3 petition.1 Plaintiff filed the petition, without supporting documents, in the Mendocino County 4 Superior Court, where it was denied on January 5, 2000. Findings and Recommendations, filed 5 August 6, 2014 (ECF No. 154) at 2-3 (quoting ECF No. 71 at 4-6). Plaintiff sought review of the 6 denial in the state court of appeal. Id. 7 Plaintiff included correspondence to that court explaining the deficiency and lack of exhibits, and asked the court for relief and an order to direct the institution of custody to copy the exhibits referred to in the writ petition. On January 25, 2000, the court clerk for the First Appellate District Court returned plaintiff’s state habeas petition, requesting plaintiff to attach the missing exhibits that defendants refused to copy, before the court would accept the petition and assign it a docket number. Court records show that plaintiff’s habeas petition was denied by the First Appellate District Court on April 13, 2000. 8 9 10 11 12 Id. Plaintiff did not file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, nor 13 did he file a federal habeas corpus petition.2 14 On March 2, 2006, a magistrate judge recommended summary judgment for defendants 15 based on a finding that under California law a pro se habeas corpus petitioner was not required to 16 provide supporting documents with his petition and, therefore, “that defendants’ refusal to copy 17 exhibits did not cause ‘actual injury’ to plaintiff’s constitutional right to access the court.” Order 18 filed March 31, 2006 (ECF No. 49) at 1 (quoting Findings and Recommendations filed March 1, 19 2006 (ECF No. 46) at 6-7. The district court declined to adopt the findings and 20 recommendations, concluding that “the appropriate question appears to be whether the failure to 21 allow the plaintiff to provide additional evidence in support of his habeas petition resulted in the 22 state court denying the petition on the grounds that the petitioner ‘made no offer of proof by way 23 of additional evidence’ to support his argument that the findings of the jury were unreasonable.’” 24 Id. at 2. As noted above, summary judgment was subsequently entered for plaintiff on the 25 1 26 27 28 Defendants’ liability on the merits of plaintiff’s First Amendment claim has been decided in plaintiff’s favor. See Order filed September 26, 2007 (ECF No. 74), adopting in full Findings and Recommendations filed August 20, 2007 (ECF No. 71). 2 Plaintiff did seek direct review of his conviction in the California Supreme Court. Defs. Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) 5 (ECF No. 134). 2 1 question of liability, leaving the question of damages for further proceedings. See ECF Nos. 71, 2 74. 3 In an order filed September 29, 2009, the district court vacated the date set for jury trial 4 and remanded the matter to the magistrate judge “for briefing as to damages, including whether 5 the inclusion of plaintiff’s exhibits with his habeas petition would have altered the result of his 6 criminal conviction and sentence, and how that issue relates to plaintiff’s claim for damages.” 7 Order filed September 28, 2009 (ECF No. 119). The findings and recommendations at bar follow 8 submission of the briefs filed by the parties.3 9 The magistrate judge notes two agreements by the parties: first, “that plaintiff’s damages 10 will be much greater if it is determined that his state habeas petition would have been granted had 11 the exhibits been included” and second, “that, regardless of whether the state petition would have 12 succeeded, plaintiff is owed nominal damages, some amount of compensatory damages, and 13 potentially punitive damages.” Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 154) at 3-4. He 14 recommends that the damages questions be tried by a jury and that the jury be tasked with 15 resolving whether petitioner’ state habeas petition had merit. Id. at 4, 18. 16 A threshold question must be resolved prior to resolution of which questions, if any, are 17 for the court in this action and which, if any, are for the jury. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 18 (1994), the United States Supreme Court held: 19 [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 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, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 The record reflects numerous extensions of time sought and received by the parties to file their briefs on damages and materials related thereto. 3 1 invalidated. But if the district court determines that the plaintiff's action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to the suit. 2 3 4 Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. Unlike Heck, where the plaintiff sought money damages for claims 5 arising directly from his criminal conviction, see id. at 479, here plaintiff’s claim for damages 6 arises from defendants’ interference with plaintiff’s right to access the courts to obtain habeas 7 corpus relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not squarely 8 addressed whether Heck’s so-called favorable termination rule applies to damages claims based 9 on interference with habeas corpus claims or other collateral attacks on criminal convictions. See 10 Koch v. Jester, 2014 WL 3783961, slip op. at 4. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11 Seventh Circuit and several district courts in the Ninth Circuit have so held. See id. at 4-5 (and 12 cases cited therein). The threshold question that must be resolved in this action is whether 13 plaintiff may recover money damages based on a finding that his habeas corpus petition would 14 have been granted absent defendants’ refusal to make the requested copies or, instead, whether 15 this aspect of plaintiff’s claim is barred by the rule announced in Heck.4 The parties have not 16 briefed this question, and it is not addressed in the findings and recommendations before the 17 court. 18 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 6, 2014 are not adopted at this time; 20 and 21 ///// 22 ///// 23 ///// 24 4 25 26 27 Whether a habeas corpus remedy remains available to plaintiff, and the consequences if it does not, should also be addressed. See Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 704-05 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing Cunningham v. Gates, 312 F.3d 1148, 1153 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002)) (fact that habeas relief is no longer available to a § 1983 plaintiff does not necessarily preclude application of the rule announced in Heck); cf. Hoard v. Reddy, 175 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 1999) (“there is probably an exception to the rule of Heck for cases in which no route other than a damages action under section 1983 is open to the person to challenge his conviction.”) 28 4 1 2. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 2 consistent with this order. 3 DATED: November 7, 2014 4 /s/ John A. Mendez_________________________ 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
