Opinion
C/A No.: 0:17-27-JFA-SVH
01-11-2017
Jeffrey Lynn Chronister, #189827, Plaintiff, v. Bruce M. Bryant; Otis J. Whitstine; J.R. Phillips; and Alan McCrory Wilson, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Jeffrey Lynn Chronister ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is an inmate incarcerated at Kirkland Correctional Institution, a facility of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. He filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights by Bruce M. Bryant, Otis J. Whitstine, J.R. Phillips, and Alan McCrory Wilson (collectively "Defendants").
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(f) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that the district judge dismiss the complaint in this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff alleges he was arrested on February 14, 1992, and claims the York County Sheriff's Department "lacked the legal authority and jurisdiction to initiate arrest and extradition due to defective warrant." [ECF No. 1 at 4-5]. Plaintiff states that following a jury trial on September 21-22, 1992, he was convicted on unspecified charges and has been illegally incarcerated for approximately 25 years. Id. at 5-6. In support of his claim, Plaintiff alleges:
Detective- Indictment's sole witness, "Affiant of arrest warrant that "probable cause based on witness's," & only official testing interview St. key witness on morning. Intent to harm abuse of process, improper extradition, and false imprisonment by false testimony. For no evidence of interviewing any witness that morning: Sergeant - no needed hearing to assess probable cause or set bail. For neglect of legal duty imposed statutory requirement of fugitive warrant of first appearance before magistrateId. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at 6. II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss a case upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
B. Analysis
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for an alleged illegal extradition, false arrest, and wrongful imprisonment. [ECF No. 1]. Such claims, however, are barred by the holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, the United States Supreme Court held that in order to recover damages for imprisonment in violation of the Constitution, the imprisonment must first be successfully challenged:
We hold that, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, . . . a § 1983 plaintiff must prove 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 a determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.Id. at 486-87. In addressing a damages claim in a § 1983 suit, "the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated." Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. This is known as the "favorable termination" requirement. See Wilson v. Johnson, 535 F.3d 262, 263 (4th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate or allege that he has successfully challenged his state conviction and/or sentence. Accordingly, any claims he may be attempting to pursue based on his conviction or sentence are barred by Heck. The undersigned recommends Plaintiff's complaint be summarily dismissed. III. Conclusion and Recommendation
To the extent Plaintiff is also attempting to challenge his confinement, see ECF No 1 at 6, his claims are more properly brought in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Both § 1983 and habeas corpus relief provide remedies for claims of unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials, but release from prison is not a remedy available under § 1983. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). Habeas corpus is the exclusive federal remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the court dismiss the complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. January 11, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
/s/
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached
"Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation."
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must 'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).