Washburn

Filing 14

RULING & ORDER: The second amended complaint, ECF No. 11 , is hereby dismissed. The Clerk may close the case. Please see attached Ruling & Order for details. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 2/6/2018. (Chenoweth, T.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
RONALD WASHBURN, III,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
SHANNON SHERRY, ET AL.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-226(RNC)

RULING AND ORDER
Ronald Washburn, III, proceeding pro se, has filed a second
amended complaint.

The amended complaint was dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The

allegations in the second amended complaint do not plead a § 1983
claim on which relief may be granted.

Accordingly, the action is

dismissed.
This case arises from the investigation and prosecution of
charges stemming from an assault.

Plaintiff pleaded guilty to

assault in the first degree and received a sentence of ten years’
imprisonment.

See State v. Washburn, FST-CR12-0131607-T (Conn.

Super. Ct. June 27, 2013).

He was on probation at the time of

the assault and received a sentence of five years’ imprisonment
for violating his probation. See State v. Washburn, No.
FSTCR06112312, 2016 WL 551244 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 15, 2016).

He claims that he was convicted as a result of violations of his
constitutional rights for which he seeks damages under § 1983.
In the ruling dismissing the amended complaint, the Court
explained that nearly all of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, if
successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
convictions and thus were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486-87 (1994).

Plaintiff was given an opportunity to file a

second amended complaint limited to a § 1983 claim that his home
was searched in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Under Heck, a

suit for damages caused by an allegedly unconstitutional search
may be maintained even if the search produced evidence used to
obtain a still-outstanding conviction.

See id. at 487 n.7.

To

recover damages in such a case, however, “the § 1983 plaintiff
must prove not only that the search was unlawful, but that it
caused him actual, compensable injury . . . which . . . does not
encompass the ‘injury’ of being convicted and imprisoned (until
his conviction has been overturned).”

Id.

In the second amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he
was arrested in his home pursuant to an arrest warrant for him
and a search warrant for his home.
warrants were invalid.

He contends that both

However, the validity of the arrest

warrant is not open to challenge here due to the plaintiff’s
still-outstanding conviction for assault.
2

See Cameron v.

Fogarty, 806 F.2d 380, 388-89 (2d Cir. 1986) (section 1983 claim
for false arrest is precluded by plaintiff’s conviction for
offense for which he was arrested); Roundtree v. City of New
York, 778 F. Supp. 614, 619 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (Cameron rule applies
to conviction based on guilty plea).

Because the arrest warrant

must be deemed valid for present purposes, plaintiff cannot prove
that the officers’ entry into the home was unlawful.

See Payton

v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602-03 (1980)(arrest warrant
authorizes officers to enter dwelling where suspect resides in
order to make arrest).

The assault conviction also precludes a

§ 1983 claim based on a search conducted incident to the arrest.
See Roundtree, 778 F. Supp. at 620.
The second amended complaint does not allege that the search
of plaintiff’s home exceeded the scope of a search incident to
arrest.

Nor does it allege any injury caused by the search

itself.

Instead, the injury plaintiff alleges is his wrongful

conviction and imprisonment.

As discussed above, plaintiff’s

still-outstanding assault conviction prevents him from recovering
for any such injury.

Accordingly, the second amended complaint

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

See

Marshall v. City of New York, No. 10 Civ. 3137(PKC), 2010 WL
4739810, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2010).

3

There appears to be no point in giving plaintiff an
opportunity to file a third amended complaint.

It is apparent

that plaintiff is seeking to recover damages under § 1983 for his
allegedly wrongful conviction and imprisonment.

As long as his

assault conviction remains outstanding, however, Heck prevents
him from suing under § 1983.

Plaintiff has been given an

opportunity to plead a Fourth Amendment claim falling outside the
scope of Heck.

His allegations, liberally construed, do not show

either that an unlawful search of his home was conducted or that
it caused him a compensable injury.
Accordingly, the action is dismissed.

The Clerk may close

the file.
So ordered this 6th day of February 2018.

/s/ RNC
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge

4