Opinion
Civil 3:19-cv-00059-wmc
01-25-2022
Cornell D. Reynolds Plaintiff, v. Patricia Flood Defendant John and Jane Doe 1 Defendant John and Jane Doe 2 Defendant John and Jane Doe 3 Defendant John and Jane Doe 4 Defendant John and Jane Doe 5 Defendant John and Jane Doe 6 Defendant John and Jane Doe 7 Defendant John and Jane Doe 8 Defendant John and Jane Doe 9 Defendant Milwaukee County Defendant Deb Smith Defendant
Represented by Cornell D. Reynolds, PRO SE.
Represented by Cornell D. Reynolds, PRO SE.
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
| 01/22/2019 | 1 | COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Cornell D. Reynolds. (Case randomly assigned to District Judge William M. Conley.) (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope) (rks) (Entered: 01/22/2019) |
| 01/22/2019 | 2 | ORDER on ifp request: Petitioner to submit $400 or Motion for IFP due 2/13/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 01/22/2019. (rks), (ps) (Entered: 01/22/2019) |
| 01/23/2019 | 3 | Clerk's Office response to questions asked by Plaintiff Cornell Reynolds in the cover letter submitted with complaint. (rks), (ps) (Entered: 01/23/2019) |
| 02/11/2019 | 4 | Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Cornell D. Reynolds. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (rks), (ps) (Entered: 02/11/2019) |
| 02/11/2019 | 5 | Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Plaintiff Cornell D. Reynolds. (Attachments: # 1 IPP Calculation) (rks), (ps) (Entered: 02/11/2019) |
| 02/11/2019 | 6 | ORDER on ifp request: Initial partial filing fee of $ 350.00 assessed due 3/4/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 02/11/2019. (rks), (ps) (Entered: 02/11/2019) |
| 02/25/2019 | Filing fee received: $ 350, receipt number 34690033935. (jef), (ps) (Entered: 02/25/2019) | |
| 01/25/2021 | 7 | Letter Requesting Status Update by Plaintiff Cornell D. Reynolds. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (aom), (ps) (Entered: 01/25/2021) |
| 01/25/2021 | 8 | Letter from Clerk's Office regarding 7 Letter Requesting Status Update. (aom), (ps) (Entered: 01/25/2021) |
| 11/10/2021 | 9 | ORDER that plaintiff Cornell D. Reynolds is DENIED leave to proceed, and this case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The clerk of court is directed to record this dismissal as a STRIKE for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (barring a prisoner with three or more "strikes" or dismissals for filing a civil action or appeal that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim from bringing any more actions or appeals in forma pauperis unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury). The clerk of court is directed to close this case. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 11/10/2021. (lam), (ps) (Entered: 11/10/2021) |
| 11/10/2021 | 10 | JUDGMENT is entered dismissing this case. (lam), (ps) (Entered: 11/10/2021) |
| 11/24/2021 | 11 | Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment by Plaintiff Cornell D. Reynolds. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope). (lam), (ps) (Entered: 11/24/2021) |
| 11/29/2021 | 12 | ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), plaintiff Cornell Reynolds filed a motion to alter or amend the court's judgment dismissing this case with prejudice. (Dkt. # 11 .) Reynolds in particular claims that the court erred in concluding that he did not have the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during his post-conviction proceeding, arguing that his Sixth Amendment claim arose from his lack of counsel during his direct appeal. Indeed, in finding that Reynolds failed to state a claim, the court observed that Reynolds alleged he was represented by counsel during his trial court proceedings, post-convictions proceedings within the trial court, and during his appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. (Dkt. # 9, at 2.) Reynolds now directs the court to his federal habeas proceedings, which do indicate that his attorney failed to raise one particular claim during his direct appeal to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. See Reynolds v. Hepp, 902 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2018). However, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also denied Reynolds' petition for a writ of habeas corpus, id., |
| and that clarification brings up another reason why this court cannot consider this claim: it is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). In Heck, the United States Supreme Court held that to recover damages for a prisoner's "unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid," under § 1983, the 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 determinations, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Id. at 486-87. Given that the Seventh Circuit denied him federal habeas corpus relief and Reynolds has not suggested that he has otherwise successfully overturned his conviction, Reynolds may not pursue monetary damages for his perceived Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment violations. Therefore, Reynolds' motion is DENIED. However, given that a dismissal under Heck is always without prejudice, the clerk of court is directed to amend the judgment in this case to show that the dismissal is without prejudice, rather than for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 11/29/2021. (jef), (ps) (Entered: 11/29/2021) | ||
| 11/30/2021 | 13 | AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of defendants dismissing this case without prejudice. (jef), (ps) (Entered: 11/30/2021) |
| 12/21/2021 | 14 | Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment by Plaintiff Cornell D. Reynolds. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (jef), (ps) (Entered: 12/21/2021) |
| 12/22/2021 | 15 | Letter from Fox Lake Correctional Institution Records Office regarding the mailing of the dkt. 14 submission from plaintiff. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (jef), (ps) Modified on 12/23/2021 (lam). (Entered: 12/22/2021) |
| 01/03/2022 | 16 | ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** Plaintiff Cornell Reynolds has filed a second motion to alter or amend the court's judgment dismissing this case. (Dkt. # 14 .) Reynolds now challenges the court's conclusion that his Sixth Amendment claim in this lawsuit is barred by Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), arguing that Heck does not apply because (1) he is seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and monetary damages, and (2) habeas corpus relief is not available to him because the Supreme Court had not addressed the viability of his claim. Yet Heck precludes claims for both monetary damages and a declaratory judgment. See Cochran v. Nozick, No. 2:20-cv-240, 2020 WL 5518535, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 14, 2020) (citing Baldwin v. Raemisch, No. 18-cv-872-jdp, 2019 WL 316746, at *3 (W.D. Wis. 2019); Turner v. Cnty. of Cook, No. 05 C 2890, 2005 WL 3299822, at *10 (N.D. Ill. 2005); Jones v. Watkins, 945 F.Supp. 1143, 1150-51 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (plaintiff "cannot seek to accomplish by a section 1983 declaratory judgment what he must accomplish through a writ of habeas corpus")). And Reynolds' prayer for relief in his complaint did not include injunctive relief (see dkt. # 1 at 5), and even if he had sought an injunction, it is likely that any relief he would seek related to this claim would be available only through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487 (1973) ("habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for state prisoners attacking the validity of the fact or length of their confinement"). Moreover, the unique nature of Reynolds' Sixth Amendment claim is not a basis to circumvent the rule set forth in Heck. Savory v. Cannon, 947 F.3d 409, 430-31 (7th Cir. 2020) ("Heck controls the outcome where a section 1983 claim implies the invalidity of the conviction or the sentence, regardless of the availability of habeas relief."). Accordingly, Reynolds' motion to alter or amend is DENIED. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 01/03/2022. (aom), (ps) (Entered: 01/03/2022) |
| 01/25/2022 | 17 | NOTICE OF APPEAL by Plaintiff Cornell D. Reynolds as to 16 Text Only Order, 10 Judgment, 12 Text Only Order, 13 Judgment, 9 Order. $505 fee or motion for ifp due. Docketing Statement filed. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Envelope) (aom), (ps) (Entered: 01/25/2022) |
| 01/25/2022 | 18 | Appeal Information Packet. (aom), (ps) (Entered: 01/25/2022) |