Deas v. USA et al
PRISCS-INITIAL REVIEW ORDER DISMISSING 1 Complaint filed by Vida Deas Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/15/2013.(Payton, R.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 3:13-cv-917 (SRU)
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, Vida Deas, currently incarcerated at the Low Security Correctional
Institution Allenwood, in White Deer, Pennsylvania, has filed a complaint pro se seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief. He names as defendants the United States of America, the
Department of Justice, Eric H. Holder, Jr., and Robert S. Mueller III.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000), the court must review prisoner civil complaints and
dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. Id. In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court must assume the truth of the
allegations, and interpret them liberally to “raise the strongest arguments [they] suggest.”
Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). Although detailed allegations are not
required, the complaint must include sufficient facts to afford the defendants fair notice of the
claims and the grounds upon which they are based and to demonstrate a right to relief. Bell
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Conclusory allegations are not sufficient.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). The plaintiff must plead “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. But “‘[a]
document filed pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’”
Boykin v. KeyCorp, 521 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
Deas was prosecuted in federal court. See United States v. Deas, 3:07cr73 (CFD). In his
complaint he asks the court to review various statutory provisions that were utilized in
calculating his sentence. Any challenge to the plaintiff’s federal conviction or the length of his
sentence must be made on direct appeal or in a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See
Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004)(“[Section] 1983 must yield to the more specific
federal habeas statute, with its attendant procedural and exhaustion requirements, where an
inmate seeks injunctive relief challenging the fact of his conviction or the duration of his
sentence.”) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973)). Thus, all claims challenging
Deas’ federal sentence are dismissed, without prejudice to pursuing them in Deas’ pending
federal habeas case.
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the court enters the following orders:
The complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Deas may raise
these issues in his pending case filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
Entered this 15th day of July 2013, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
/s/ Stefan R. Underhill
Stefan R. Underhill
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?