Hendrix v. Vaughn et al

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint Referred (42:1983) filed by Alfonzo Hendrix, recommending that Plaintiff's request to proceed informa pauperis be denied and his complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 7/6/2009. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on June 18, 2009. (cap)

aot,R ' r N Tl rL L Nlr hr) s lA l LSDISTRICT

c wesle DdrssTRR f frrtr lcT ou T

*urtuo 'l ,l l T i .;o l l ftffi " r^ * ruN8200e I
+0tI 4 c i v i lNo. 4:09-cv-o
I 11 DEPUTYCIfRK

F-IRLB'ARlqNsAs

I]TNDRIX AI.FONZO

Bf ,",'ufflr1il!'ll'

PII'tl l'JEAN C A R L VATJGHN; Arkansas; P O L I L T R Y ,Ilrcscott. E X - P 0 L I C L OI'I]ICER CIIRIS OF I i I N C I I E R EX-POLICE FICLR ; SLjNDIJLIRGI EX-CI]IEF OF SCC)TT P O L I C DSAM REEDER; FIX-ASSIS'IANT ( : I I ] E F OF POLIL]EMORRIS IRWIN; ol D t J S T I NMcIJANII,L, Stttte Atkarrsas. Ceneral's Ollice: and Attornrry JTIDGEDt.IN(]AN CI..ILPLPPER CIRCI.JIT

TJF]I.ENDANTS

R E P O R ' I ' AND RECOMMENDATION OIT'IHE MAG 42 l his is a civil lights uctionlihd by thc PlaintiffpulsuimtL() tJ.S.C.$ 1983. The clerk is puuperi:; alrplication atrd courplaint. lJeftrrcthe Coufi is Plaintiffs t l i r e c t e d to filc thc irr /irrnrr.t r n o t i o n lbr leirve k) procccd ln fbrma paupttri5. l'or thc reasolis sl.ated heltrw, it is the bc in.[ormaptutperi,s applicirtitrn dcniedandhis that r e c o l r r n e n d r t i t rol'thc undcrsigned Plirinti{l's n ( l o n r p l a i n tLrrdismissed.

Busksraund rvtrs Hcndrix's honie on 7, ol'theconrplaint, March 2004, A c c o r d i nro rhcallcgations g
PoliccL)cparturent. ofthe Prescott hy i l l e g a l J ;searchr:cl OfficcrsClrrisFincherand ScottSundbcrg inl'ornration prnvided to the H e n d r i x rnaintainsthis searchwas blsed on firlsc and incLxrsi$tsnt p o l i c c by CharlesVuughn. Morris abouta robbery.Hcndrixalleges Hcndrixstates wasquetilioncd he I ) r u - i r rtlresoarch, g Iice Culpepper. signcd all the Chiel'olP6lice,SanrRccdcr. Clhiel'o1'Po , andJudge l r v i n .theAssistant d o c u r r r c n thavingto do with the illegtl search. s

was Hcnclrix nraintains robbery the bv arrd vic{jnr, CarlVirughn, brought thehouse idcntificd testinrony at Hendrix ofrobbery guveI'alse and I r i r n . Hcndrix maintains Vaughan falsely uccused H e n d r i x 'criminal s trial.
1he H c n d r i x maintains was convicl.etj crime he ditln't comutit. Ileudrix nraintains he ol'a becauscJutlgc Culpeppersignedan invirlid scarchwafl'ant. c a s eshould have been disnrissed and his record be expunged. He also asks for f t c n d r i x asks that hjs crrnviotionbe revcrsct{ lor c o m p e n s r r t o r y punitive danrages his falsc itnprisoumeut. turd Discus.qioE T h e pJtinlill'is irn inmatcof thc Arkansas WrightsvilleI-lnit. l)epartrnenI ol'(]orucction, P u l s u a n tto 2li t.1.S.(1. l9l5A thc court has the ohligatio to screcnany complaint in which a $ prisoner redlesslionr ir governrnental r)l'a entity. cntityor officeror enrployee govcrnmctrtal seeks 2 8t l . S . C . 1 9 1 . 5 A ( a ) $ fbllowcd by the thereis ir two $tepproccss I n reviewingtn in.firnu putqrerisapplication. qualilie$by cconomicstatus c o u r t .Firsl,ir c{ctcrmination whctherthe Pla.intilT under$ 19l 5(a) of causc actiotr of a ol'whethertLtc a n d .if so.to perrrril complaintto be filed. Sccond, determinatiou the is Mtulin:l"rigona stated inthe ccrnrplainl.liivrrlousormaliciousand.if so,todistiiss lhecrlnrplaint. (i9l (Bth{lir. l9tl2). 2tt tl,S.C.$ 191SA(bXOn review,thc courtis to r , .,Stcu,nrf, F.?d8,56,857 ()1 the or that is Iiivolous.trtalicious. failsto state d j s n r i s s complitinL, flnv portionofthc cornplaint, who is imtmure or rnonetary relief'lioma defLndant a claimqron wtich rrliel'may be grantcd. sccks g 5(cXZXll)(i-iii) f i ' o r nsuchleliell). ,tt'ea/sa 2l{ lJ.S.(1. 191 Plaintil'l'$Lates c;nlyrccr-ivos l'romhis sistcr, he fundsinto his innia.le I r rlrisaJIidavil.. accoLrrlt about fJeparLmert f Lirrtcction showhis montlrly balance irverirgccl o T h e recotdsliom the Arkansirs s suppliedby Plaintiif appditl to bc sufficientto t h i r t y - n i n e($39.00)dollars. The inl-trrmation statu$. status in.lbrmnpauperi,r fol d c t c r r r r i r rtliat PlaintifTwouldqualily by econontic e as H o w c v c r ,thc claimsareolearlysubject disnrissal thcy arc frivolous,fail to state claiffs to

inclividuals iurmunel'romsuit' First,the against or rupolwhich reliel'maybc grante<l, areasscrted thattook placein on of us by arc clairns asserted harred the statutc limitations thcy arc based events causes I'action o of not M a r c ho f'2004.Scction1983cloes containits ornr slatute lirnitation.Instcad, by u n < l e r 1983are goveme<l $ "thc most uppropriirtc analogous or $tatcstatuteof liuritatitrns."

(]artitt. also Wilsonv. (1987)(S l98l case).Sae Lb..482 IJ.S.656,660 G o o t l n t nt,. LuktrnSteel t ll t i 1 l X$ ) 4 7 1 L i , s . 2 ( i 1 , 2 ( r 8 ( 1 9 8 59 8 3 o a s e B;e l lv . I t t t y , l e r , 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 2 , 2 6 5 - 2 6 ( j ( 8 t 9t tC6r).( $ 9 8 5 ifljurystatute liftitations,Ark. CodeAnn. l6-56of thrccyearpersonal cirse). llArkalsas. 1hisisLhrl 247 105(3) (2005 stc Miller v. ,^''r.r/'ris. F.3d 73(r,739 ( Ilth cir. 200I xArk. clodeAmr. $ I 6-56). that Thus.auycl imsbitscdon ovents to applicrrhlc $ I983 cases). ol I t)5(3)is thestrrrutrr limitations () c c c u r r c din 2004,woultl he hancd by the statuts I'linlitfltions. by it a ! j e c 6 n d to the extenltheconlplaintassefis clirintftrr datnages, is barred the Supretnc . U.S.477,114 Ct.2364,1?9L. I1d.2d383 (1994).In S. Humphru,v.5l2 of C o u r rdecision tleckt,. "allegcdlyuuconslilrrlional couvictiou (lor.rrt firr f'or: hcld that a clatinr t{amages 1 1 c c kthe Suprenre , would rcntlcra conviction whoser.nrlawfultress by uausecl actious or o r imprisonnrent. fbr otherharrrr until invalitl" is not cognizahlc o r $sFtel)cc "the convictionor scntence becnlfversedon direct hirs

hy a p p e a l .exprrnged cxccutive order, rleclarcdinvalitl by ir statotribunal arrthorizcdto muke sr-rch cotpus'" of or a dcterrrinirtiofl, callcd into questio hy a fcdcralcourt'sissuance a wtit of habcas hcld invalid or has Hcndrix's conviotirrn not beenrevcrscd otherwise .l1ecft,5l? ll.S.4116-117. under$ 1983. Miteks v. wttco,502 culpeppcris immunefionr sLrit T h i r d . . l r , r d gDunctur c fiotr]suit,not is irnmunity rrnimrnunity I _ t . S . 9Il, IIZ S. Ct.286,1 I6 1,.hd. 2d 9 ( 1991)("Judicial , F.3d460,462 Duty v. {,ity ol Spring:dale,42 ,Skc oI'damirgcs."). rrl,rp assessnent i u s t fionr ultirnatc ( g t h ttir. 1994). ".lutlgcsperlirnningjudicial functionsenjtty absoluteitnmunity from $ 1983 5 l i a b i l i t y . "R o h i n s o n ! r.t t t t z t : , 1 F . 3 dI 0 7 , I 0 8 ( 8 t h C i r -| 9 9 4 ) . v on ut is I o u r t h , this conrplaint subiectto <lisrrissal res.jt't(li( tt grounds.Hendrixfilcd aprior while rr et.r/, clivil No. 4:06-cv-04090. llenr?rL:r .Rogers, v, c i v i l actionhascdon the samcclainrs,

dismissalr.rndcr Ll.S.Lr. l9l.5kl) ''doesn()Lhar futurc litigation over l.henretits of a paid 28 $ r;omplaint, $ l9l5(d) dismissal a hasres allegations the disrnissed as c o m p l a i n tmaking the sanre j u d i c a t ael'f'ect'trrr liivolousncss detcrminations lirturein.litrmapaupttrispetitiorrs."'ll/ullar v fbr ( r ' r o o , r e , l.3d 1007,1008(8th Cir. 1994). Ar.cordingly, disrnissal has thc of4:06-cv-04090 tes 3tl ft/etltct and cstablishcs this cluim is liivolorrsI'ot $ l9l5(d) purposes. that iudicatrr Conclusion to recr)mrrrendirlionthc undcrsigned Plaintilf-srecluest procccd t.rf that A c c o r u l i n g l yit is I.he , withoutprcjr.rdicc. and Plaintiffs'Clomplaint disrnisscd be in.fbrmu be trtuulten.r derried in P h i n t i l f has ten (10) days from rcccipt of this report rrndrecornmendation which to l i l e written objectionspursuant trr ?8 ll.$.C, {i 636(hX1). 'l'he failure to filc timcly obiettiodst

r n a y result in waivor of thc right to tppefll questionsof fact' Plaintiff is reminded that o b j o c t i o n smust bc both timelv rrnd specificto trigger de novo rcview by the district court.

D A ' I ' E D f,'uy il,i,

of June2009.
H O N .BARRYA, IJBffANT I . ] N ] T EI )STATI,SMACIS I RTE JUDCiE