Opinion
Civil Action Nos. 1:13-16360
12-03-2015
MICHAEL KANODE, SR., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, et al., Defendants.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending is Plaintiff's Applications to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Document No. 3.). Having examined Plaintiff's Complaint, the undersigned has concluded that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted in this matter and therefore respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's Applications to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees be denied and this matter be dismissed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On June 28, 2013, Plaintiff, acting pro se and in confinement at Huttonsville Correctional Complex in Huttonsville, West Virginia, filed his Complaint claiming entitlement to relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983. (Document No. 1.) Plaintiff names the following as Defendants: (1) State of West Virginia; and (2) Mercer County. (Id.) First, Plaintiff explains that he seeks to "recover his forfeited property that was illegally seized and sold by the Circuit Court, Judge Derek C. Swope, and Prosecutor Tim Boggess." (Id., p. 2.) Plaintiff states that he was "subjected to an illegal forfeiture and seizure due to his ex-wife being on video tape with Plaintiff's two children in his vehicle, while Plaintiff was at work." (Id.) Thus, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to an "unreasonable search and seizure" and that his property was taken in violation of the Taking Clause. (Id., pp. 3 - 4.) Next, Plaintiff complains that he was falsely arrested and subjected to excessive force on December 14, 2006. (Id., pp. 2 - 3.) Plaintiff further argues that he was subjected to a "wrongful conviction because there was no proof that Plaintiff committed the acts charged." (Id., p. 4.) Plaintiff explains that the crimes were committed by his ex-wife and son. (Id., p. 5.) Therefore, Plaintiff states that he "appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Mercer County and seeks a New Trial in this proceeding." (Id., p. 6.)
Because Plaintiff is acting pro se, the documents which he has filed in this case are held to a less stringent standard than if they were prepared by a lawyer and therefore, they are construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).
Plaintiff asserted similar claims in Civil Action Nos. 1:09-01530, 1:10-0407, 1:11-0994, and 1:12-0157.
THE STANDARD
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to screen each case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. On screening, the Court must recommend dismissal of the case if the complaint is frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A "frivolous" complaint is one which is based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). A "frivolous" claim lacks "an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Id., 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833. A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact when it describes "fantastic or delusional scenarios." Id., 490 U.S. at 327-28, 109 S.Ct. at 1833. A complaint, therefore, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted factually when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.
ANALYSIS
"[F]ederal courts must take cognizance of the valid constitutional claims of prison inmates." Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2259, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy for violations of all "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws [of the United States]." Thus, Section 1983 provides a "broad remedy for violations of federally protected civil rights." Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 685, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Generally speaking, to state and prevail upon a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a Plaintiff must prove that (1) a person acting under color of State law (2) committed an act which deprived him of an alleged right, privilege or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 1. Improper Parties:
Plaintiff names the State of West Virginia as a Defendant. Section 1983 claims, however, must be directed at a "person." See Preval v. Reno, 203 F.3d 821 (4th Cir. 2000)(unpublished)(finding that the Piedmont Regional Jail is not a "person" under Section 1983); Roach v. Burch, 825 F.Supp. 116, 117 (N.D.W.Va. 1993)(stating that the West Virginia Regional Jail Authority is not a "person" under Section 1983); also see Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2309, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989)(Suits against a state or state agencies for monetary damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution); Webb v. Parsons, 2011 WL 2076419 (S.D.W.Va. May 6, 2011)(finding that the West Virginia Regional Jail Authority, an agency of the State of West Virginia, is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment). Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the State of West Virginia is not a "person" as required by Section 1983. 2. Heck:
Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated during the course of his criminal proceedings in the Circuit Court of Mercer County. Specifically, Plaintiff challenges the validity of his conviction in Case No. 07-F-206 based on the following: false arrest, unreasonable search and seizure, and insufficient evidence to support conviction. Given the nature of Plaintiff's allegations, it appears that Plaintiff is implying that his conviction is invalid as a result of various constitutional violations during his criminal trial in the Circuit Court of Mercer County, West Virginia. Consequently, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim under Section 1983 pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). In Heck, the United States Supreme Court held that:
[I]n order 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,28 U.S.C. §2254. A claim for damages bearing the relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under §1983.Id. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2372.See also Ballenger v. Owens, 352 F.3d 842 (4th Cir. 2003)(holding that an arrestee's Section1983 claim was not cognizable against state trooper, alleging unreasonable search and seizure, under Heck, since judgment in arrestee's favor would have implied the invalidity of conviction). Plaintiff does not indicate that he has been successful in habeas proceedings. The undersigned, therefore, finds that because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his criminal conviction has been invalidated, Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim is not cognizable pursuant to Heck. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the above claims be dismissed. 3. Statute of Limitations:
A Plaintiff must file a Section 1983 action within the prescribed time period. Because there is no federally prescribed statute of limitation, Courts look to and apply their respective State's statutes of limitation. See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50, 109 S.Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989). The Fourth Circuit has recognized that "in the absence of any state statute of limitations specifically applicable to suits to redress a violation of civil rights, the West Virginia limitation on personal injury actions applies." McCausland v. Mason County Bd. of Ed., 649 F.2d 278 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1098, 102 S.Ct. 671, 70 L.Ed.2d 639 (1981). Under West Virginia law, the applicable period of limitation upon a plaintiff's right to file a personal injury is two-years from the time the cause of action accrued. See W.Va. Code § 55-2-12(b). Additionally, the applicable period of limitations for a claim of false arrest and false imprisonment is one-year. Wilt v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 203 W.Va. 165, 506 S.E.2d 608, 613 (1998); also see Snodgrass v. Sisson's Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 161 W.Va. 588, 244 S.E.2d 321 (1978). Although the limitation period is borrowed from State law, the question of when a cause of action accrues is answered according to federal law. See Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, NC, 85 F.3d 178, 181 (4th Cir. 1996). Under federal law, a cause of action accrues "when the plaintiff possesses sufficient facts about the harm done to him that reasonable inquiry will reveal his cause of action." Nasim v. Warden, MD House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995)(en banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1177, 116 S.Ct. 1273, 134 L.Ed.2d 219 (1996)(citing United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 122-24, 100 S.Ct. 352, 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979)). "Accrual of a claim does not 'await awareness by the plaintiff that his injury was negligently inflicted.'" Nasim, 64 F.3d at 955 (quoting, Childers Oil Co., Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 960 F.2d 1265, 1272 (4th Cir. 1992)). Accordingly, for a Section 1983 action, "a cause of action accrues either when the plaintiff has knowledge of his claim or when he is put on notice -- e.g., by the knowledge of the fact of injury and who caused it -- to make reasonable inquiry and that inquiry would reveal the existence of a colorable claim." Nasim, 64 F.3d at 955. To determine when a plaintiff possessed knowledge of his injury, the Court "may look to the common-law cause of action most closely analogous to the constitutional right at stake as an 'appropriate starting point.'" Brooks, 85 F.3d at 181 (citations omitted).
West Virginia Code § 55-2-12 provides as follows:
Every personal action for which no limitation is otherwise prescribed shall be brought: (a) Within two years next after the right to bring the same shall have accrued, if it be for damage to property; (b) within two years next after the right to bring the same shall have accrued if it be for damages for personal injuries; and (c) within one year next after the right to bring the same shall have accrued if it be for any other matter of such nature that, in case a party die, it could not have been brought at common law by or against his personal representative.
Plaintiff's Complaints allege that he was unlawfully arrested and detained in violation of his constitutional rights because there was no warrant and there was insufficient evidence to support his arrest (Case No. 07-F-206). A Section 1983 claim for false arrest or false imprisonment accrues when the claimant is detained pursuant to legal process. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S.384, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 1100, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007)(holding "that the statute of limitations upon a § 1983 claim seeking damages for false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where the arrest is followed by criminal proceedings, begins to run at the time the claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal process."). Plaintiff states that he was arrested on December 14, 2006. Accordingly, by applying the West Virginia one-year statute of limitation, together with the federal standard of accrual, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff's cause of action for false arrest expired on December 14, 2007, one-year from the date Plaintiff was detained pursuant to legal process. Plaintiff filed his instant Complaint on June 28, 2013. Accordingly, the one-year statute of limitations has run as to Plaintiff's claim of false arrest.
The Supreme Court noted that "[f]alse arrest and false imprisonment overlap; the former is a species of the later." Wallace, 127 S.Ct. at 1095.
Generally, a plaintiff knows of his injuries in a cause of action for false arrest without probable cause on the date of his arrest. Thus, a cause of action for false arrest will accrue at the time of arrest. See Covington v. City of New York, 171 F.3d 117 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 946, 120 S.Ct. 363, 145 L.Ed.2d 284 (1999); Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331, 348-49, 351 (3d Cir. 1989).
It is "well established that where an officer presents all relevant probable cause evidence to an intermediary, such as a prosecutor, a grand jury, or a magistrate, the intermediary's independent decision to seek a warrant, issue a warrant or return an indictment breaks the causal chain and insulates the officer from a Section 1983 claim based on lack of probable cause for an arrest or prosecution." Rhodes v. Smithers, 939 F.Supp. 1256, 1274 (S.D.W.Va. 1995). --------
Plaintiff further alleges that police officers used excessive force during his arrest on December 14, 2006. As stated above, the applicable period of limitation upon a plaintiff's right to file a personal injury claim is two-years from the time the cause of action accrued and a cause of action accrues when a plaintiff has knowledge of his claim or injury. The undersigned concludes that Plaintiff's cause of action accrued no later than December 14, 2006, the date excessive force was allegedly used upon Plaintiff. Applying the West Virginia two-year statute of limitation, together with the federal standard of accrual, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff's cause of action expired on December 14, 2008, two-years from the date Plaintiff became aware of any injury resulting from Defendants' use of excessive force. Plaintiff filed his instant Complaint on June 28, 2013. Accordingly, the two-year statute of limitations has run as to Plaintiff's excessive force claim. 4. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine:
"Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts generally do not have jurisdiction to review state-court decisions; rather, jurisdiction to review such decisions lies exclusively with superior state courts and, ultimately, the United States Supreme Court." Plyler v. Moore, 129 F.3d 728, 731 (4th Cir. 1997)(citing District of Columbia Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86, 103 5. Ct. 1303, 1314-17, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 150, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923)); also see Friedman's Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 196 (4thCir. 2002)(quoting Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Va., 122 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2002)("[F]ederal courts are divested of jurisdiction 'where entertaining the federal claim should be the equivalent of an appellate review of the state court order.'")). The Fourth Circuit has explained that "the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies only when the loser in state court files suit in federal district court seeking redress for an injury allegedly caused by the state court's decision itself." Davani v. Virginia Dept. of Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 713 (4th Cir. 2006). In the instant case, Plaintiff is essentially asking this Court to review and reject the findings of the Circuit Court of Mercer County. Specifically, Plaintiff states that he "appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Mercer County and seeks a new trial in this proceeding." (Document No. 1, p. 6.) Thus, Plaintiff is clearly requesting that this Court review the decisions of the Circuit Court of Mercer County. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine precludes Plaintiff's indirect attempt to appeal a State Court decision to this Court.
PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned therefore respectfully PROPOSES that the District Court confirm and accept the foregoing findings and RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Document No. 3), DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint (Document No. 1) and remove this matter from the Court's docket.
The Plaintiff is hereby notified that this "Proposed Findings and Recommendation" is hereby FILED, and a copy will be submitted to the Honorable United States District Judge David A. Faber. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Rule 6(d) and 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff shall have seventeen (17) days (fourteen days, filing of objections and three days, mailing/service) from the date of filing of this Findings and Recommendation within which to file with the Clerk of this Court specific written objections identifying the portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which objection is made and the basis of such objection. Extension of this time period may be granted for good cause.
Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Copies of such objections shall be served on opposing parties, District Judge Faber and this Magistrate Judge.
The Clerk is requested to send a copy of this Proposed Findings and Recommendation to Plaintiff, who is acting pro se, and transmit a copy to counsel of record.
Date: December 3, 2015.
/s/_________
R. Clarke VanDervort
United States Magistrate Judge