Opinion
Civil Action 22-2461 (UNA)
09-28-2022
MIGUEL ANTONIO GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. et al ., President, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JIA M. COBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a civil complaint, ECF No. 1, and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the IFP motion and dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires immediate dismissal of a prisoner's case against governmental defendants if the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or is frivolous.
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner who has sued President Joe Biden, several Assistant United States Attorneys (“AUSAs”) in Denver, Colorado, and Colorado Governor Jared Polis. The complaint, to the extent intelligible, arises from Plaintiff's jury convictions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. See United States v. Garcia, 825 Fed. App'x 571, 573 (10th Cir. 2020).
Plaintiff seems to allege that his rights under the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were violated when the AUSAs and law enforcement personnel conspired to fabricate evidence and to commit or suborn perjury during grand jury proceedings and later at his trial. See generally Complaint. Plaintiff seeks various forms of injunctive relief, including the elimination of mandatory minimum sentences for the crimes of which he was convicted, his “immediate release from prison,” and the elimination of “the Heck rule.” Id. at 22-23.
The claim against President Biden and Governor Polis is premised on the implausible theory that those high-level officials were deliberatively indifferent to the alleged misconduct. See Compl. at 10. Because this claim lacks an arguable basis “either in law or in fact,” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), it is dismissed as frivolous.
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), the Supreme Court held that when a successful challenge to a criminal conviction would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction or sentence, the plaintiff cannot bring a civil action for damages without first invalidating the conviction through a sanctioned proceeding. The D.C. Circuit has clarified that Heck also applies to lawsuits, such as this, for equitable relief. Harris v. Fulwood, 611 Fed. App'x 1, 2 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005)). Because Plaintiff's success on the current complaint would raise serious questions about the validity of his convictions, his claims “are not cognizable unless and until he meets the requirements of Heck.” Id. Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order.