Pritchett v. Farr et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 11

ORDER OVERRULING 10 Objection to Report and Recommendation; ADOPTING the 9 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as follows: (1) Plaintiffs claims against the Wadley Police Department and the Randolph CountySheriffs Department are D ISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); (2) To the extent Plaintiff presents claims challenging the constitutionality of his convictions for electronic solicitation of a child and enticing a child to enter for immoral purpos es, these claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); (3) this case is DISMISSED prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 12/5/13. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION

PETER PRITCHETT, JR., #284 708,
Plaintiff,
v.
POLICE OFFICER DEREK FARR, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13cv712-WHA

ORDER
This case is before the court on Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. #10) to the Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #9). Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of
the file, the court finds the Plaintiff’s objection to be without merit.
Plaintiff objects to the Recommendation that his § 1983 complaint be dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e). The complaint was dismissed pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994) based on Plaintiff’s allegation of a Fourth Amendment unlawful search and seizure claim.
Plaintiff’s first objection is that he did not give consent for a magistrate judge to review
his case. This objection is without merit as Plaintiff objects to actions which are taken in
accordance with Local Rule 72.2 of this court as well as authority provided magistrate judges
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
Next, Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that Defendants Wadley Police Department
and the Randolph County Sheriff’s Department be dismissed as defendants. Plaintiff maintains
that he named only two Defendants to his Complaint – the law enforcement officials who are
alleged to have violated his Fourth Amendment rights. This was not entirely clear based on the

1

way Plaintiff captioned his Complaint and the way he listed Defendants on page 2 of the
Complaint, and, thus, noting the two entities as Defendants was reasonable. Further, whether or
not the two entities are considered Defendants has no bearing on the main basis Plaintiff’s
Complaint was recommended for dismissal.
Finally, Plaintiff maintains that Heck is not applicable to his Complaint, because a
judgment in his favor “would not alone invalidate his criminal conviction or sentence in that the
alleged unconstitutional seizure of the phone(s) w[as] not all the evidence . . . used by the state to
convict [him] where[] the victim gave testimony at trial also, which was considered by the Jury,
and the Court.” (Doc. #10 at 3-4). Although Plaintiff did not mention in his Complaint that the
victim testified and was an additional source to support his conviction, Heck does not stand for
the proposition that if other evidence introduced at trial could support a conviction, then it is
permissible to allow a Fourth Amendment challenge to be litigated in a § 1983 action even if a
judgment on such challenge would imply the invalidity of the conviction and/or without a
showing that the conviction in question has been invalidated. Heck does not necessarily bar
every Fourth Amendment challenge so long as success on such a challenge would not imply the
invalidity of the conviction. However, given the specific allegations made in the instant
Complaint, the search and seizure about which Plaintiff complains could not be considered
appropriate under any other legal doctrine, e.g., independent source. Plaintiff’s complaint,
therefore, is subject to dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) as well as
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997), and Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500
(1973).
For the foregoing reasons, the objection is OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

2

1. Plaintiff’s claims against the Wadley Police Department and the Randolph County
Sheriff’s Department are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
2. To the extent Plaintiff presents claims challenging the constitutionality of his
convictions for electronic solicitation of a child and enticing a child to enter for immoral
purposes, these claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
3. This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
DONE this 5th day of December, 2013.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3