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)

Download PDF
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

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?