Hall v. Helder et al
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing case without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on December 15, 2016. (tg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DAVID LYNN HALL, JR.
Civil No. 5: 16-cv-05322
SHERIFF TIM HOLDER and ,
CORPORAL TOM MULVANEY
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights case filed by the Plaintiff, David Lynn Hall , Jr., under the
provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. He is
currently incarcerated in the Wrightsville Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction .
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) modified the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
to require the Court to screen complaints for dismissal under§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court
must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (a) are 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
According to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff alleges he has been
illegally incarcerated since August 25 , 2016 , due to "fraudulent charges and fraudulent
paperwork." (Doc. 1, p. 6) In his Addendum , Plaintiff indicated he was being held in the
Washington County Detention Center because his parole had been revoked and he was
awaiting transport to the ADC . (Doc. 7, p. 1) Plaintiff further stated he committed a
technical violation and signed for a six month parole violation . He argues his sentencing
and discharge date from his original sentence were only to be changed by his sentencing
judge. (Doc. 7, p. 2)
As relief, Plaintiff asks for a formal written apology from Defendant Mulvaney for
violating his consitutional rights by incarcerating him illegally with fraudulent paperwork.
(Doc. 1, p. 18)
Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen a case prior to service of process
being issued . A claim is frivolous when it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact."
Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S . 319 , 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted if it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face. " Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). However, the Court
bears in mind that when "evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts
to state a claim , we hold 'a prose complaint, however inartfully pleaded , ... to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."' Jackson v. Nixon , 747 F.3d 537 , 541
(8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
Plaintiff's claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S . 477 (1994). In Heck,
the Supreme Court held that a claim for damages for "allegedly unconstitutional conviction
or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render
a conviction or sentence invalid" is not cognizable until "the conviction or sentence has
been reversed on direct appeal , expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such a determination , or called into question by a federal
court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Id. at 486-87.
Plaintiff alleges he was illegally incarcerated , and further challenges the duration of
his sentence for a parole violation. He does not allege that his parole violation or the
sentence for it have been reversed , expunged , declared invalid , or called into question by
a federal court. His claim is therefore barred by the Heck doctrine.
The Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under§ 1983 and is frivolous and/or
asserted against an individual immune from suit. The case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8)(1)-(iii) (IFP action may be dismissed at any
time due to frivolousness or for failure to state a claim).
IT IS SO ORDERED on this /
5 ~ day of Decemb
TES 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?