(PC) Hunt v. California Department of Corrections et al, No. 2:2008cv02838 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/9/09 ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations in full. This action is DISMISSED and Pltf's 3 Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED. CASE CLOSED. (Engbretson, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Hunt v. California Department of Corrections et al Doc. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ZACKERY HUNT, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-2838 LKK KJM P vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 ORDER / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 19 On December 8, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections 21 to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff’s claim attacks the validity of the revocation of his parole and his present 2 confinement. The Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) 3 prohibits a plaintiff who is still in custody from bringing such a challenge as a section 1983 4 claim. Betterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Crow v. Penry, 102 F.3d 5 1086, 1087 (10th Cir. 1996) and McGrew v. Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 6 161 (5th Cir. 1995)). Plaintiff’s claim “amounts to a collateral attack on his parole revocation 7 and subsequent incarceration. Heck does not permit this.” Crow, 102 F.3d at 1087. Instead, if 8 plaintiff wishes to challenge his confinement in federal court, this challenge must be brought at a 9 petition for habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 8, 2008, are adopted in 12 full; and 13 2. This action is dismissed and plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief 14 (Docket No. 3) is denied. 15 DATED: February 9, 2009. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
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.
