Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00726-REB-BNB
05-14-2012
ANTOINE JONES, Plaintiff, v. SARA M. REVELL, BLAKE R. DAVIS, J.M. WILNER, CHARLES DANIEL, J.C. HOLLAND, UNKNOWN NAME MAILROOM SUPERVISOR, UNKNOWN NAME MAILROOM STAFF, Defendants.
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are: (1) the plaintiff's filing captioned as "Plaintiff is Requesting for Leave To Resubmit 4-15-2012 Motion" [#73]; and (2) the plaintiff's Motion To Reinstate, Renewal or Refile a New Civil Right Complaint [#74], both filed May 11, 2012. I deny both motions.
"[#73]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
Addressing the first filing [#73], it is not clear what motion the plaintiff seeks to resubmit. No motion was filed in this case on April 15, 2012. Thus, first motion [#73] is denied.
On June 14, 2011, this court entered an order [#59] dismissing this case without prejudice. The dismissal was entered because the plaintiff sought to proceed in forma pauperis in this case despite the fact that the plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in this type of case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This bar is in effect because several of the plaintiff's previous cases have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff filed an appeal. Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution. Order [#72] filed July 27, 2011.
Some of the plaintiff's previous cases were dismissed based on the holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). These dismissals are part of the basis on which the § 1915(g) bar is applicable to the plaintiff. In Heck, the Supreme Court held that if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a civil case necessarily would imply the invalidity of the plaintiff's prior conviction or sentence, then the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence already has been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.
In his motion to reinstate [#74], the plaintiff reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the conviction which was the basis of the previous dismissals of some of the plaintiff's civil cases under Heck. On that basis, he now seeks to re-open this case. Notably, the reversal of a conviction suffered by the plaintiff does not necessarily eliminate the bar to his in forma pauperis status under § 1915. Under these circumstances, if the plaintiff wishes to re-assert the claims he asserted in this case, then the plaintiff must file a new case asserting those claims. If the plaintiff chooses to file a new case, he may be required to pay the court's filing fee. In the alternative, if the plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, then the propriety of the plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis will be determined based on the plaintiff's showing in such a motion. This court makes no determination concerning the plaintiff's entitlement to file in forma pauperis or the application of any statute of limitations to the plaintiff's potential claims. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the plaintiff's filing captioned as "Plaintiff is Requesting for Leave To Resubmit 4-15-2012 Motion" [#73] filed May 11, 2012, is DENIED;
2. That the plaintiff's Motion To Reinstate, Renewal or Refile a New Civil Right Complaint [#74] filed May 11, 2012, is DENIED;
3. That the denial of these motions is without prejudice to the filing of a new civil action by the plaintiff.
Dated May 14, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
______________________
Robert E. Blackburn
United States District Judge