(1973). A § 1983 action requests relief from state action that deprived one of a federal right. The favorable-termination rule was developed to ensure that an individual who is, or was, in custody pursues the stringent time requirements for habeas relief before filing a § 1983 action, Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir.2005). The favorable-termination rule, as developed by subsequent Heck cases, requires an individual who is, or was, in custody and is seeking relief that n Cir.1987) (recognizing that a fine typically does not meet the “in custody” requirement). Under these circumstances, the Court finds Mr. Johnson was never “in custody” and, therefore, the favorable-termination rule does not apply. See also Haddad v. California, 64 F.Supp.2d 930 (C.D.Cal.1999) (<HOLDING>). Because the favorable-termination rule does
holding that hecks favorabletermination rule did not apply because haddad was not in custody as a result of his traffic conviction holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence holding that the special relationship exception did not apply because the decedent was not in defendants custody holding that a death sentence for a conviction for the rape of a child where the crime did not result and was not intended to result in death of the victim was barred by the eighth amendment holding that traffic stops do not ordinarily place a motorist in custody the court rejected the position that custody arises as soon as the level of suspicion amounts to probable cause to arrest