Coleman v. Percin

Full title: GEORGE COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. K. PERCIN, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Jan 25, 2006

Case Number: 4:05-CV-40394 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 25, 2006)

Opinion

Case Number: 4:05-CV-40394.

January 25, 2006

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

PAUL GADOLA, District Judge

Plaintiff George Coleman has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Kinross Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan. He is proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). After careful consideration, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),¹ because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) provides, in pertinent part:

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 —
. . .

(ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted . . .

Plaintiff claims that the defendant, K. Percin, a Westland police officer, falsified evidence against him, withheld evidence, conspired to make false statements, and engaged in other unlawful acts leading to his conviction for criminal sexual conduct.

A judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the claims contained in his complaint would necessarily imply the invalidity of his continued confinement. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), the Supreme Court held such claims to be improper under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages 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 plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.

Id. at 486-87. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus provides the appropriate vehicle for challenging the fact or duration of a prisoner's confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 486-87 (1973). Thus, if Plaintiff wishes to assert the claims contained in the pending complaint, he must do so by filing a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court declines to construe Plaintiff's complaint as a habeas corpus petition because he does not allege that his claims are exhausted, see Parker v. Phillips, 27 Fed. Appx. 491, 494 (6^th Cir. 2001). Further, the Court declines to construe the complaint as a habeas corpus petition because Plaintiff may want to assert additional or different claims for relief in a habeas corpus petition than those contained in the complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

SO ORDERED.