Opinion
Case No. 2:04-CV-377 TS.
June 9, 2004
ORDER
Plaintiff, Diane Moneta Fritz, filed a pro se civil rights complaint and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 2003); 28 id. § 1915(b) (Supp. 2003). Plaintiff names the following defendants: State of Utah, Salt Lake Police Department, Officer Olverson, Salt Lake Legal Defender's Association, and public defender Marie Maxwell. Plaintiff asserts that, with intent to harass and slander her, these defendants variously charged her with crimes for which they had no evidence, lied to her, and coerced her into pleading guilty in another case. For these alleged infringements, Plaintiff requests removal of the criminal charges from her record and monetary damages.
The Court now screens these claims. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2003). Under § 1915A, the Court shall dismiss a complaint or any portion of a complaint that "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." See id. "Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts [s]he has alleged and it would be futile to give h[er] an opportunity to amend." Perkins v. Kan. Dep't of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999). To determine whether to dismiss, the Court "must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and . . . must construe those allegations, and any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Id. Moreover, the allegations of a pro se complaint must be liberally construed. Id.
First, about Plaintiff's request that her criminal charges be "removed," the Court notes that "`when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of h[er] physical imprisonment, and the relief [s]he seeks is a determination that [s]he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, h[er] sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.'" Reed v. McKune, 298 F.3d 946, 953 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1841 (1973)). The Court therefore concludes that, as to the request to remove charges, Plaintiff's claim may not be considered under § 1983 but should rather be raised in a habeas corpus petition. See id.; see also 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 Supp. 2003).
Second, Plaintiff's claim for money damages for the allegedly baseless criminal charges she faces also fails. See Reed, 298 F.3d at 953. The Supreme Court has stated,
"to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions 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 determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus."Id. (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 So. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994) (footnote omitted)). Inasmuch as a decision for Plaintiff would "`necessarily imply the invalidity of h[er] conviction or sentence,' and because [she] has not `demonstrate[d] that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated,' [the Court] conclude[s] that h[er] claim for money damages is likewise not cognizable under § 1983." Id. at 953-54 (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims are dismissed because she has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2003).