# (PC) Mondragon v. Unknown

> District Court, E.D. California · August 13, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10636419

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** August 13, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10636419

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing the difference between determinate and indeterminate sentences

## Opinion text

1

2

3

4

5

6

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
GIANCARLO MONDRAGON, Case No. 1:24-cv-00887-EPG (PC)
11
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
13 v. WHY CERTAIN CLAIM(S) SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED AS BARRED BY FAVORABLE
14 UNKNOWN, TERMINATION RULE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TO PLAINTIFF FILING A PETITION FOR
15 Defendants. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

16
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
17
18
Plaintiff Giancarlo Mondragon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
19
in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed his
20
complaint on July 26, 2024 against Unknown defendants, who are officers at Substance Abuse
21
Treatment Facility and State Prison (SATF). (Id. at 2). Plaintiff alleges that procedural safeguards
22
were violated during the search of his cell on October 24, 2023. (Id. at 3). When his cell was
23
searched and contraband, including a cell phone, was found, Plaintiff received several Rule
24
Violation Reports (RVRs). Plaintiff lost privileges, contact visits with family, and credits. (Id. at
25
31, 41, 42). Plaintiff may also be challenging his temporary detention in a holding cell. (Id. at 4).
26
It appears from the face of Plaintiff’s complaint that he is directly challenging the validity
27
of at least one RVR that resulted in the loss of good-time credits. If success on this claim would
28
1 necessarily change the duration of Plaintiff’s confinement, that claim must be filed as a petition
2 for writ of habeas corpus, rather than the current 1983 lawsuit. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
3 486–87 (1994) (also known as “favorable termination rule”). Thus, to determine if success in this
4 action would necessarily affect the duration of Plaintiff’s confinement, the Court requires
information regarding Plaintiff’s sentence, specifically whether it is determinate (e.g., “six
5
years”), indeterminate (e.g., “25 years to life”), or for life without parole.
6
It is also not clear whether Plaintiff is separately challenging his temporary detention,
7
which is a claim that is proper to address in a 1983 lawsuit.
8
Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why the claim(s) challenging
9
RVRs should not be dismissed as barred by favorable termination rule, without prejudice to
10
Plaintiff filing a separate petition for writ of habeas corpus based on the same claim(s).
11
Alternatively, if Plaintiff believes that his claim(s) are barred by favorable termination rule,
12
Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntarily dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
13
41(a)(1). If Plaintiff’s challenge to temporary detention presents a separate claim, he may also ask
14
the Court to sever that claim and proceed in this case only on that claim.
15
Plaintiff must file a response within thirty days. If Plaintiff fails to file a response, this
16 Court will recommend to an assigned district judge that claims challenging RVRs be dismissed,
17 without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
18 I. LEGAL STANDARDS
19 “[A] prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration
20 of his confinement. He must seek federal habeas corpus relief (or appropriate state relief)
21 instead.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (citations and internal quotation marks
22 omitted). In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994), the United States Supreme Court
23 held that to recover damages for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
conviction or sentence invalid,” a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence was
24
reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. This “favorable termination rule” preserves the rule
25
that federal challenges, which, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of
26
confinement or its duration, must be brought by way of petition for writ of habeas corpus, after
27
exhausting appropriate avenues of relief. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750–51 (2004).
28
1 Accordingly, “a state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no
2 matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit
3 (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)—if success in that action
4 would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S.
at 81–82.
5
The Supreme Court has extended the Heck bar to § 1983 suits that would negate prison
6
disciplinary proceedings that affect good-time credits where those good-time credits necessarily
7
affect the duration of a Plaintiff’s confinement. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997).
8
A prisoner’s challenge to a disciplinary hearing procedure must proceed as a writ of habeas
9
corpus if judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of the resulting loss of
10
good-time credits. Id. at 646; see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487 (1973); Nettles v.
11
Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927–29 (9th Cir. 2016).
12
II. ANALYSIS
13
Here, it appears that Plaintiff is directly challenging the validity of an RVR that resulted in
14
the loss of good-time credits. It thus may be barred by the favorable termination rule.
15
However, the Court cannot determine based on the complaint if restoration of those
16 credits would necessarily affect the duration of Plaintiff’s confinement. If Plaintiff is serving a
17 determinate sentence for a fixed number of years,1 success in this action would necessarily
18 demonstrate the invalidity of Plaintiff’s confinement or its duration. However, if Plaintiff is
19 serving an indeterminate (e.g., “25 years to life”) or life-without-parole sentence, success in this
20 action would not affect the duration of his confinement.
21
22
23
1 “A prisoner sentenced to a determinate term is released on parole upon expiration of his term as
24
accelerated by any earned credits and does not receive parole based on a discretionary decision made by
25 the Board at a hearing. … A prisoner sentenced to an indeterminate term of life with the possibility of
parole must serve a minimum term of confinement before being eligible for parole, after which the Board
26 is empowered to make the discretionary determination whether the prisoner is suitable to be released on
parole.” In re Ernst, No. F081386, 2022 WL 1401476, at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. May 4, 2022); see also Cal.
27
Penal Code § 1170 (Determinate sentencing); In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal. 4th 1061, 1077, 104 P.3d 783,
28 790 (2005) (discussing the difference between determinate and indeterminate sentences).
1 Il. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of this order to
3 | show cause why certain claims in this case should not be dismissed as barred by Heck v.
4 || Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), favorable termination rule.
5 Alternatively, if Plaintiff believes that his claims are barred by Heck favorable termination
6 rule, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntarily dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
7 Procedure 41(a)(1), without prejudice to Plaintiff later filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus
8 based on the same claims raised in his complaint in this case.

9 Plaintiff also may ask the Court to sever his claim challenging temporary detention and
proceed in this lawsuit only on that claim.
8 If Plaintiff fails to file a response, this Court will recommend to an assigned district judge
that claims challenging RVRs be dismissed.
12
13 | ITIS SO ORDERED.
pated: _ August 12,2024 [Je hey
I5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10636419. Public record. Not legal advice.