Jackson v. Minnesota

Full title: Tony Dejuan Jackson, Plaintiff, v. State of Minnesota, in its Official…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Date published: Feb 21, 2012

Civil No. 11-3740(DSD/JJK) (D. Minn. Feb. 21, 2012)

Opinion

Civil No. 11-3740(DSD/JJK)

02-21-2012

Tony Dejuan Jackson, Plaintiff, v. State of Minnesota, in its Official Capacity et al., Lori Swanson, Attorney General for the State of Minnesota, Committees of the Senate with Jurisdiction over Criminal Justice Policy, Committees of the House of Representatives with Jurisdiction over Criminal Justice Policy, Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, Lori Skjerven Gildea, Chief Judge of the Minnesota State Supreme Court, Matthew E. Johnson, Chief Judge of the Minnesota State Appellate Court, Timothy J. McManus, Dakota County District Court Judge for the State of Minnesota, and James Backstrom, Dakota County Prosecutor for the State of Minnesota, Defendants.

David S. Doty

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon the January 18, 2012, report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes. In his report, the magistrate judge recommends summary dismissal of this action because the complaint fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Specifically, the magistrate judge determined that plaintiff's claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).¹ Jackson did not file an objection to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation.²

1 The Magistrate Judge also notes that Jackson has previously filed a habeas corpus petition in this matter. The petition was considered and denied. See Jackson v. Dingle, No. 04-19, ECF No. 39. Plaintiff cannot seek further habeas review without first obtaining a pre-authorization order from the Eighth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

2 Jackson is currently pursuing three § 1983 lawsuits. Although he timely filed objections in the two other cases, he did not do so in this matter. Nonetheless, the court notes that had Jackson filed an objection, it would have been barred by Heck.
--------

Based upon the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and review of the file, record and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation [ECF No. 5] is adopted in its entirety;

2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is denied as moot;

3. Plaintiff's motion to consolidate [ECF No. 3] is denied as moot; and

4. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 6] is denied as moot.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

_____________

David S. Doty, Judge

United States District Court