With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (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

A: holding that hecks favorabletermination rule did not apply because haddad was not in custody as a result of his traffic conviction
B: holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence
C: holding that the special relationship exception did not apply because the decedent was not in defendants custody
D: 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
A.