Guy v. Channell et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. The Court certifies that an ifp appeal would not be taken in good faith. The dismissal of this action constitutes a "strike". Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 9/10/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
BENNIE DAVID GUY,
No. 4:12-cv-481 KGB
LISA CALHOUN CHANNELL,
DNA Examiner, Arkansas State Crime Lab, et al.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Bennie David Guy, is a prisoner in the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department
of Correction. He has recently filed a pro se § 1983 Complaint alleging that defendants violated
his constitutional rights.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints
seekingreliefagainstagovernmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court
must dismiss a complaint or a portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally
frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). When
making this determination, the Court must accept the
~ruth ofthe factual allegations contained in the
complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2lp09); Reynolds v. Dorm ire, 636 F .3d 976, 979
(8th Cir. 2011).
In 1996, plaintiff pled guilty to related rape charges in the Crittenden and St. Francis County
Circuit Courts. Over the years, plaintiff has filed at least four unsuccessful federal habeas petitions
and § 1983 actions challenging those convictions. Se'r Guy v. Norris, 5 :03CV00466 JMM; Guy v.
Parkman,2:10CV00066 SWW; Guyv. Hobbs, 5:11CV00233 JMM; Guyv. Laxton, 3:11CV00084
In this § 1983 action, plaintiff seeks damages from defendants Lisa Calhoun Channell and
Kermit Channell for allegedly violating his substantive due process rights by falsifying DNA
evidence that was used against him in the Crittenden County rape case.
Plaintiff knows, from an earlier§ 1983 action, that he must first have his Crittenden County
rape convictions reversed, questioned, or called intq doubt by the highest state court or a federal
habeas court before he can seek damages under§ 198~. 1 Muhammadv. Close, 540 U.S. 749,750-51
(2004); Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,486-87 (19~4). Because he has failed to obtain such relief,
he cannot proceed with this § 1983 action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT this cc:).se is DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Court further CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28
U.S.C.~~ 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal
would not be taken in good faith. The dismissal of tJis action constitutes a "STRIKE," as defined
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
SO ORDERED this I Qili day of September,
la:?i\1·~ N u.~UA./
Kristine G. Baker
pnited States District Judge
In Guy v. Laxton, 3:11CV00084 DPM, plltiff alleged that his attorney and a county
investigator entered into a conspiracy to withhold exc*lpatory DNA evidence. The Court dismissed
that § 1983 claim, without prejudice, because plaintiffs Crittenden County rape conviction had not
been reversed, questioned or called into doubt by the ~ighest state court or federal habeas court. The
Eighth Circuit affirmed that ruling. Guy v. Laxton, i 2011 WL 511953 7 (8th Cir. Oct. 28, 2011)
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?