Opinion
Civil Action 18-636-P
03-15-2021
ROOSEVELT THOMAS ARDISON v. D. BELANGER, ET AL.
HICKS CHIEF JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Mark L. Hornsby U.S. Magistrate Judge
In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report, and recommendation.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Before the court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff Roosevelt Thomas Ardison (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this court on May 11, 2018. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Bayou Dorcheat Detention Center in Minden, Louisiana. He claims his civil rights were violated during his arrest and criminal trial proceedings. He names D. Belanger, Agent Witham, and the Caddo-Shreveport Street Level Interdiction Unit as defendants.
Plaintiff also filed claims alleging excessive force by Defendants. These claims remain pending at this time.
Plaintiff claims that on June 8, 2017, Agent D. Belanger and Agent Witham confronted him while he was on private property because he was in a high crime area. He claims he did not run or attempt to take flight from the agents. He claims he did not clutch at his waist or throw anything. He claims he did not yell or signal to alert anyone else of the police presence.
Plaintiff claims he was wrongfully confronted, selected, seized, and searched by the agents. He claims he was advised of his Miranda rights. He claims the agents made a forged recorded statement by him that violated his right to remain silent.
Plaintiff claims he was arrested and found guilty by a jury of possession with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Plaintiff claims his trial was unfair because the evidence was illegally obtained. He claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks his immediate release from incarceration and monetary compensation.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Heck Claim
Plaintiff claims he was wrongly convicted. Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages for allegedly unconstitutional convictions. The United States Supreme Court held that in order to recover monetary compensation for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or sentence or for "harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid," a prisoner must show that the conviction or sentence has been "reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). Heck involved a civil rights claim brought by a state prisoner. The Court dismissed the Section 1983 suit until plaintiff could demonstrate that his conviction or sentence had been invalidated. When a claim comes within the parameters of the Heck teachings, it is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 so long as the validity of the conviction or sentence has not been called into question as defined therein, which requires dismissal of claims not meeting its preconditions for suit. See Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages for civil rights violations under Section 1983; therefore, he must prove his conviction and/or sentence have been invalidated. He has not met this precondition and his complaint must be dismissed until such time that he can demonstrate that his conviction and/or sentence and/or revocation have been invalidated.
Habeas Claims
To the extent Plaintiff seeks release from custody, his claims should be dismissed. A release from custody is not available through a civil rights action. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998) (any claim attacking the validity or duration of confinement must be raised in a habeas corpus petition); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Such relief is available, if at all, in a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). To the extent Plaintiff seeks his release from incarceration, he fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff filed this proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP"), if this court finds Plaintiff's complaint to be frivolous it may dismiss the complaint as such at any time, before or after service of process, and before or after answers have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). District courts are vested with extremely broad discretion in making a determination of whether an IFP proceeding is frivolous and may dismiss a claim as frivolous if the IFP complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22 (5th Cir. 1995); Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827 (1989).
Accordingly;
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's civil rights claims seeking monetary damages for his allegedly unconstitutional convictions be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) until such time as the Heck conditions are met. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action-insofar as it seeks his release-be DISMISSED for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted pursuant to Section 1983.
OBJECTIONS
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court, unless an extension of time is granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party's objection within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at the time of filing.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations set forth above, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking, on appeal, the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and that were not objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).