Opinion
C.A. No. 04-113 T
April 8, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Confined at the Adult Correctional Institutions in Cranston, Rhode Island, plaintiff John F. Winston filed a Complaint allegedly pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff names as a defendant Ernest Trahan, a private individual. According to the plaintiff, Mr. Trahan filed criminal charges against the plaintiff with a local law enforcement agency following an altercation between the two. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Trahan has lied in the criminal proceedings that have occurred thus far. As relief, plaintiff is seeking $27,400 in damages and to have the criminal charges lodged against him by Mr. Trahan dismissed.
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) Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code provides a vehicle to bring claims against persons acting under the color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; See, e.g., Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-18 (1981). Here, plaintiff asserts a claim against a private individual. Thus, his Section 1983 claims against Mr. Trahan should fail.
(2) 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.
(3) To the extent that plaintiff sought to file a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, plaintiff must first exhaust his state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Here, there is no indication that plaintiff presented any claim of this type to the state courts for determination.
(4) Finally, to the extent plaintiff may be attempting to invoke the diversity jurisdiction of this Court to set forth a claim of state tort law, plaintiff's Complaint should still be dismissed. Diversity jurisdiction requires, inter alia, that the parties be residents of different states and the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. From all indications, plaintiff and defendant are both residents of Rhode Island. Moreover, the amount in controversy is $27,400. Accordingly, plaintiff fails to satisfy the prerequisites for diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I recommend that plaintiff's 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).