Opinion
CA. No. 02-311 T
October 10, 2002
Wesley Spratt, Pro Se.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Currently before the court is the application of the plaintiff Wesley Spratt, pro se, to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Confined at the Adult Correctional Institution in Cranston, Rhode Island, plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Constitutional rights. Named as defendants are Providence Police Detective Clement, Detective John Murray, Detective Robert Wesblown, Prosecutor Scott Erickson, Raymond Perrin, and Attorney Robert Marro. Plaintiff has brought this action alleging that the defendants violated his First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights during the course of his arrest, trial and sentencing for the crime of murder. He seeks declaratory judgment, compensatory and punitive damages, and to be released from custody.
Section 1915A of Title 28 of the United States Code directs the Court to review prisoner complaints before docketing or soon thereafter to identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). Pursuant to this directive, this Court finds that the instant complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for the following reasons:
(1) To the extent that the plaintiff seeks to be released from custody, a state prisoner has no cause of action under § 1983 to challenge the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). His sole federal remedy lies in a writ of habeas corpus. Id.
(2) To the extent that plaintiff seeks to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must demonstrate 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. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). Neither plaintiff's conviction nor his sentence have been invalidated. In fact, both his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court on December 21, 1999. See State v. Spratt, 742 So.2d 1194 (R.I. 1999).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Further, I recommend that plaintiffs complaint be dismissed. Any objection to this report and recommendation must be specific and must be filed with the Clerk of Court within ten days of its receipt. FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b). Failure to file timely, specific objection to this report constitutes waiver of both the right to review by the district court and the right to appeal the district court's decision. United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1980).