Marable v. Strange et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 12/22/15. (SAC )
2015 Dec-22 PM 01:59
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
LUTHER STRANGE, et al.,
) Case No. 2:14-cv-01960-WMA-SGC
The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on November 3, 2015,
recommending this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
(Doc. 14). On December 7, 2015, the plaintiff filed objections to the report and
recommendation and a motion for discovery. (Docs. 17 & 18).
In his objections, the plaintiff re-alleges his claims that state officials
wrongfully used his prior juvenile convictions to enhance his current sentence. (Doc.
17). However, the plaintiff does not address the magistrate judge’s conclusion that
the plaintiff’s challenge to the legality of his current confinement is barred by Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). In Heck, the United States Supreme
Court held that in order to recover for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
sentence or for other harm caused by unlawful actions, which would render a
conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove 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. See id. at 486-87.
A claim for declaratory relief bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that
has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Edwards v. Balisok, 520
U.S. 641, 648 (1997). The plaintiff has not alleged his sentence has been set aside
such that he may recover declaratory relief in this § 1983 action.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the court
is of the opinion the magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED
and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the complaint is due to be
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing to state
a claim on which relief may be granted. Additionally, because the plaintiff has not
shown he is entitled to relief, his motion for discovery (Doc. 18) is DENIED. A final
judgment will be entered.
DONE this 22nd day of December, 2015.
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?