Opinion
Civil No. 2:15-CV-10482
02-12-2015
JEFFREY R. LEBLANC, Plaintiff, v. MACOMB REGIONAL FACILITY, Defendant,
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
I. Introduction
Jeffrey R. LeBlanc, ("Plaintiff"), confined at the Macomb Regional Facility in New Haven, Michigan, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons that follow, the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
II. Standard of Review
Plaintiff has been allowed to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 § U.S.C. 1915(a); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) states:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that:
(B) the action or appeal:
(I) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); See also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). "A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact if it ... is based on legal theories that are indisputably meritless." Brown v. Bargery, 207 F. 3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000)(citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28). A complaint fails to state a claim "if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id. at 867. Sua sponte dismissal is appropriate if the complaint lacks an arguable basis when filed. McGore, 114 F. 3d at 612; See also Goodell v. Anthony, 157 F. Supp. 2d 796, 799 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
To establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil rights plaintiff must establish that: (1) the defendant acted under color of state law; and (2) the offending conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by federal law. Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F. 3d 673, 677 (6th Cir.1998). "If a plaintiff fails to make a showing on any essential element of a § 1983 claim, it must fail." Redding v. St. Eward, 241 F. 3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 2001).
III. Complaint
Plaintiff claims that he is being wrongfully incarcerated by defendant because the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal case. Plaintiff does not specify what charges that he was convicted of, but the Michigan Department of Corrections' Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS), which this Court is permitted to take judicial notice of, See Ward v. Wolfenbarger,323 F. Supp. 2d 818, 821, n. 3 (E.D. Mich. 2004), indicates that plaintiff was convicted of malicious destruction of personal property between the value of $ 1,000.00 and $ 20,000.00. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
IV. Discussion
Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal.
Plaintiff is unable to obtain monetary damages arising from his criminal conviction absent a showing that his criminal conviction had been overturned. To recover monetary damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence was reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into question by the issuance of a federal writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994); See also Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 816, n. 10 (6th Cir. 2003). Because plaintiff does not allege that his conviction has been overturned, expunged, or called into question by a writ of habeas corpus, his allegations relating to his criminal prosecution, conviction, and incarceration against the defendant fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted and must, therefore, be dismissed. See Adams v. Morris, 90 Fed. Appx. 856, 858 (6th Cir. 2004); Dekoven v. Bell, 140 F. Supp. 2d 748, 756 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
To the extent that plaintiff is seeking to have his criminal conviction vacated or set aside in this civil rights action, the civil rights complaint is subject to dismissal. Where a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his or her physical imprisonment and the relief that he or she seeks is a determination that he or she is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his or her sole federal remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). A plaintiff cannot seek injunctive relief relating to his or her criminal conviction in a § 1983 action. Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004). Instead, "§ 1983 must yield to the more specific federal habeas statute, with its attendant procedural and exhaustion requirements, where an inmate seeks injunctive relief challenging the fact of his conviction or the duration of his sentence." Id.
To the extent that plaintiff is seeking to be released from custody, his action should be filed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and not a civil rights suit under § 1983. Plaintiff, by his own admission, has a petition for writ of habeas corpus pending in the federal court. See LeBlanc v. Romanowski, U.S.D.C. No. 2:14-CV-13219 (E.D. Mich.). No decision has been rendered on that case yet. To the extent that petitioner is seeking release from incarceration, his current action is dismissed for being duplicative of his habeas petition that is pending before Judge Duggan. See Davis v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 870 F. 2d 657 (Table), No. 1989 WL 25837, * 1 (6th Cir. March 7, 1989)(district court can properly dismiss a habeas petition as being duplicative of a pending habeas petition, where the district court finds that the instant petition is essentially the same as the earlier petition).
When a prisoner's civil rights claim is barred by the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine, the appropriate course for a federal district court is to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), rather than to dismiss the complaint with prejudice as being frivolous, because the former course of action is not an adjudication on the merits and would allow the prisoner to reassert his or her claims if the conviction or sentence is later invalidated. See Murphy v. Martin, 343 F. Supp. 2d 603, 609 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Therefore, because the Court is dismissing plaintiff's § 1983 complaint under Heck, the dismissal will be without prejudice. See e.g. Finley v. Densford, 90 Fed. Appx. 137, 138 (6th Cir. 2004).
V. ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: February 12, 2015 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of record on February 12, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Assistant