Coley v. Llewllyn et al
ORDER approving and adopting 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; dismissing 1 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; denying 10 motion to amend complaint; denying as moot 6 motion to appoint counsel; finding that dismissal of Mr. Coley's complaint counts as a strike; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal is considered frivolous and not in good faith. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 11/03/2014. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
LITTLE ROCK DIVISION
KEITH ELDRED COLEY
Case No. 4:14-CV-00095 KGB
JERRY LLEWLLYN, ET AL.
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by
United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young (Dkt. No. 5) and the objections filed by plaintiff
Keith Eldred Coley (Dkt. No. 7). After carefully considering the objections and making a de
novo review of the record in this case, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and
Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this
Court’s findings in all respects.
The Court writes separately to address Mr. Coley’s objections. Mr. Coley argues that his
“sentence is called into question by [a] writ [of habeas corpus]” (Dkt. No. 7) and, therefore, that
the Court should not dismiss his claims for damages for his allegedly unconstitutional conviction
and imprisonment. Although Mr. Coley filed a writ of habeas corpus questioning his sentence,
that writ was dismissed with prejudice in federal court. Coley v. Ark. Dep’t of Correction, et al.,
Case No. 5:14-cv-00018 (E.D. Ark. April 23, 2014). Accordingly, Mr. Coley’s complaint here
should be dismissed. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (“We hold that, in
order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment … a §1983
plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been … called into question by a federal
court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.”).
After filing his objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendations, Mr. Coley
filed a motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 10).
Mr. Coley’s motion to amend his
complaint makes no new allegations; instead, it repeats his previous claims concerning his
conviction and sentencing.
Therefore, the Court denies Mr. Coley’s motion to amend his
complaint for the same reasons it has dismissed his complaint. Mr. Coley also filed a motion to
appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 6). That motion is denied as moot.
It is therefore ordered that:
Mr. Coley’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
Mr. Coley’s motion to amend his complaint is denied (Dkt. No. 10).
Mr. Coley’s motion to appoint counsel is denied as moot (Dkt. No. 6).
This dismissal of Mr. Coley’s complaint counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and
judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith.
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2014.
Kristine G. Baker
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?