Opinion
Case No. 01-CV-70343-DT
March 6, 2001
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
I. Introduction
The Court has before it Plaintiff's pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has granted Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently confined at the Marquette Branch Prison in Marquette, Michigan. Defendants are the City of Jackson and two police officers employed by the Jackson Police Department.
In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he was illegally arrested on February 4, 1991 for an armed robbery. Plaintiff seeks to be compensated for his time in prison and requests $45 million in monetary damages. Having reviewed Plaintiff's complaint, the Court now dismisses it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) and 1915A (b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
II. Discussion
Plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) ("PLRA"), the Court is required to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service on a defendant if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (e)(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). The Court is similarly required to dismiss a complaint seeking redress against government entities, officers, and employees which it finds to be frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (b)(1). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he was deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the federal Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978); Brock v. McWherter, 94 F.3d 242, 244 (6th Cir. 1996). A pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Jones v. Duncan, 840 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir. 1988). Despite the liberal pleading standard accorded pro se plaintiffs, the Court finds that Plaintiff's § 1983 claim is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
A claim under § 1983 is an appropriate remedy for a state prisoner challenging a condition of his imprisonment. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973). In this case, however, clear that Plaintiff is actually seeking habeas corpus relief, inasmuch as his complaint addresses his arrest and state criminal proceedings. Ruling on the claims raised would necessarily invalidity of his continued confinement. Such claims are not properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (holding that a state prisoner does not state a cognizable civil rights claim challenging his conviction or imprisonment if a ruling on his claim would necessarily render his continuing confinement invalid, until and unless the reason for his continued confinement has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or has been called into question by a federal court's issuance or a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254); Schilling v. White, 58 F.3d 1081, 1085 (6th Cir. 1995); see also James v. Scavoni, No. 99-2066, 2000 WL 1206540 (6th Cir. Aug. 18, 2000) (dismissing civil rights complaint against court reporter, judge, and others based upon Heck and immunity). This holds true regardless of the relief sought by the plaintiff. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487-89. Given that Plaintiff's arrest and/or conviction has not been overturned or declared invalid, his § 1983 claims must be dismissed.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) and 1915A (b)(1).
Additionally, the Court concludes that an appeal from this order would be frivolous and therefore cannot be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.