Lingo v. State of Alabama et al (INMATE1)

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Ralph Wilson Lingo, that this case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Objections to R&R due by 6/7/2006. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 5/25/2006. (dmn)

Lingo v. State of Alabama et al (INMATE1)

Doc. 4

Case 1:06-cv-00462-WHA-CSC

Document 4

Filed 05/25/2006

Page 1 of 5

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA S O U T H E R N DIVISION R A L P H LINGO, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-462-WHA [WO]

S T A T E OF ALABAMA, et al., Defendants.

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Ralph Wilson Lingo ["Lingo"], an inmate presently c o n f in e d at the Montgomery City Jail, challenges a conviction entered against him by the C irc u it Court of Henry County, Alabama. Lingo names the State of Alabama, the Alabama P lu m b in g and Gas Board, David Wilcox, a state plumbing inspector, and the Henry County C o u r t as defendants in this case. Lingo seeks monetary damages from the defendants. P la in tiff's Complaint at 4. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of this case prior to serv ice of process is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).1

1. A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint screened in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires the court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action prior to service of process if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:06-cv-00462-WHA-CSC

Document 4

Filed 05/25/2006

Page 2 of 5

I . DISCUSSION L in g o attacks the validity of a conviction imposed upon him by the Circuit Court of H e n ry County, Alabama arising from his "do[ing] mobile home plumbing and plumbing re p a irs ." Plaintiff's Complaint at 3. Specifically, Lingo complains that the trial judge " re f u se [ d ] [him] a jury trial" and failed to bring him before the court for entry of his guilty p le a . Id. at 2. Lingo further argues that counsel "lied" when he advised plaintiff "to sign a w a iv e r" in a separate criminal case from Houston County because the document he "sign[ed] w a s actually a guilty plea" for the Henry County case. Id. at 2-3. Lingo further maintains th a t his actions which formed the basis for the conviction did not constitute a crime under s ta te law. Id. at 3. The aforementioned claims go to the fundamental legality of Lingo's c o n v ic tio n . These claims therefore provide no basis for relief under § 1983 at this time. E d w a r d s v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); P r e is e r v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a claim for damages challenging the legality of a prisoner's conviction is not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action "unless and until the c o n v ictio n or sentence is reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ o f habeas corpus" and complaints containing such claims must thisefore be dismissed. 512 U .S . at 483-489. Under Heck, the relevant inquiry is "whether a judgment in favor of the p la in tif f would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence." 512 U.S. at

2

Case 1:06-cv-00462-WHA-CSC

Document 4

Filed 05/25/2006

Page 3 of 5

4 8 7 . The Court emphasized that "habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a . . . prisoner w h o challenges" a conviction or sentence, "even though such a claim may come within the lite ra l terms of § 1983" and, based on the foregoing, concluded that Heck's complaint was d u e to be dismissed as no cause of action existed under section 1983. 512 U.S. at 481. In so doing, the Supreme Court rejected the lower court's reasoning that a § 1983 action should b e construed as a habeas corpus action. In Balisok, the Court concluded that a state prisoner's "claim[s] for declaratory [and in ju n c tiv e ] relief and money damages, . . . that necessarily imply the invalidity of the p u n is h m e n t imposed, is not cognizable under § 1983 . . ." unless the prisoner can d e m o n s tra te that the challenged action has previously been invalidated. 520 U.S. at 648. M o re o v e r, the Court determined that this is true not only when a prisoner challenges the ju d g m e n t as a substantive matter but also when "the nature of the challenge to the procedures c o u ld be such as necessarily to imply the invalidity of the judgment." Id. at 645. The Court re ite ra te d its position taken in Heck that the "sole remedy in federal court" for a prisoner c h a lle n g in g the constitutionality of a conviction or sentence is a petition for writ of habeas c o rp u s . Balisok, 520 U.S. at 645. Additionally, the Court "reemphasize[d] . . . that a claim e ith e r is cognizable under § 1983 and should immediately go forward, or is not cognizable a n d should be dismissed." Id. at 649.

3

Case 1:06-cv-00462-WHA-CSC

Document 4

Filed 05/25/2006

Page 4 of 5

T h e claims presented in the present complaint challenge the constitutionality of a c o n v ic tio n imposed upon Lingo by the Circuit Court of Henry County. A judgment in favor o f Lingo on the pending claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of this conviction. It i s clear from the complaint that the conviction about which Lingo complains has not been in v a lid a te d in an appropriate proceeding. Consequently, the instant collateral attack on the ju d g m e n t of the state court is prohibited and subject to summary dismissal by this court in a c c o rd a n c e with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Balisok, 520 U.S. at 645; H e c k, 512 U.S. at 481; Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-490 (1973). CONCLUSION A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be d is m is s e d without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It is further ORDERED that on or before June 7, 2006 the parties may file objections to this R e c o m m e n d a tio n . Any objections filed must clearly identify the findings in the Magistrate J u d g e 's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive or general o b jec tio n s will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this R e c o m m e n d a tio n is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

4

Case 1:06-cv-00462-WHA-CSC

Document 4

Filed 05/25/2006

Page 5 of 5

D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D is tric t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

W a in w r ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 25 th day of May, 2006.

/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY C H IE F UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5