(PC) Jimenez v. Superior Court of California, County of Kings, 1:19-cv-01780

Plaintiff Rudy Jimenez, incarcerated ~24 years, alleges he is being unlawfully held past his release date after original vandalism conviction with a gang enhancement.
He contends CDCR or other officials changed or mischaracterized his charges (including alleged sex-offense paperwork) and that prosecutorial and arrest-phase errors (no warrant, no Miranda, withheld exculpatory/DNA evidence) infected his conviction.
In September 2019 he petitioned the Kings County Superior Court under Cal. Penal Code § 1170.95; the court denied relief, finding the statute inapplicable to his vandalism/gang enhancement conviction.
Jimenez sued county and court actors plus prison officials in a § 1983 action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and $75 million in damages; he filed a first amended complaint after an earlier screening.
The magistrate judge screened the FAC, found the claims challenge the legality/duration of confinement and are barred by the favorable-termination rule (Heck) and Preiser, concluded amendment would be futile, and recommended dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jimenez may pursue § 1983 damages and relief for unlawful incarceration when his conviction/sentence has not been invalidated	Jimenez contends his conviction is tainted by prosecutorial and arrest errors and CDCR misconduct, so he seeks damages and relief under § 1983	The claims in effect seek to invalidate his conviction/duration of confinement and are therefore barred by Heck and Preiser; habeas is the proper remedy and exhaustion is required	Claims are Heck-/Preiser-barred; plaintiff cannot obtain damages or release via § 1983 absent prior invalidation of conviction
Whether the court should permit further amendment after initial leave to amend	Jimenez was previously given an opportunity to amend and submitted a FAC	Defendants (and the court) argue the defects are substantive (Heck-bar) so further amendment would be futile	Court finds further amendment futile and recommends dismissal

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (favorable-termination rule: § 1983 damages barred until conviction/sentence invalidated)
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas corpus is sole federal remedy for challenges to fact or duration of confinement)
Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012) (leave to amend may be denied as futile when claims are legally barred)
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (standards for dismissing complaints that fail to state a claim)