(PC) Jimenez v. Superior Court of California, County of Kings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUDY JIMENEZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-01780-DAD-SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13 v. TO DISMISS ACTION

14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, (Doc. 13) COUNTY OF KINGS, et al., 15 21-DAY DEADLINE Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Rudy Jimenez alleges that he is unlawfully incarcerated. (See Doc. 13.) As 18 discussed below, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the favorable termination rule of Heck v. 19 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). When, as here, a plaintiff seeks damages on the grounds 20 that he is unlawfully confined, he may not pursue claims under section 1983 until his “sentence 21 has been declared invalid … or called into question by a … court’s issuance of a writ of habeas 22 corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 23 Given that Plaintiff’s claims are Heck barred, and that Plaintiff received a prior 24 opportunity to amend (see Doc. 8), the Court finds that further amendment would be futile. See 25 Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202,…