Opinion
Civil Action No. 13-0636
06-06-2013
TED A. KLAUDT, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on review of the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.
The plaintiff "was charged in Hughes County[, South Dakota] with four counts of second degree rape through use of force or coercion . . . . Ultimately, the jury convicted [him] on all four counts." State v. Klaudt, 772 N.W. 2d 117, 121 (S.D. 2009) (footnote omitted). "He was sentenced to four consecutive, eleven-year terms in the penitentiary." Id. (footnote omitted). According to the plaintiff, "the State of South Dakota used a Selective Prosecution against him, and . . . the Defendant's [sic] are continuing to hold [him] as a Prisoner of War (P.O.W.)." Compl. at 3-4. Notwithstanding his "numerous attempts to remedy his unlawful incarceration," the defendants have not responded to his demands. Id. at 4; see id. at 2-3. Among other relief, the plaintiff demands his release from custody and compensation of "$1.6 (one million six hundred thousand dollars) per day for each day he has been incarcerated since August 26, 2008, more or less $584.0 million per year, more or less $2.5 billion." Compl. at 5.
Because the success of the plaintiff‘s claims necessarily would void his conviction, the plaintiff cannot recover monetary damages without first showing that the convictions have been invalidated either by "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by executive order, . . . or . . . a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). The plaintiff's criminal convictions have been affirmed on direct appeal, see Klaudt, 772 N.W. 2d. at 118, and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been denied, see Klaudt v. Dooley, No. 10-4091, 2010 WL 5391571 (D.S.D. Dec. 22, 2010). The plaintiff has not shown that his convictions have been invalidated, and, therefore, he fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the court will dismiss the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1). An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
______________________
United States District Judge