Washburn
Filing
8
RULING & ORDER: The amended complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Please see attached Ruling & Order for details. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 2/25/2016.(Rickevicius, L.)
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, a Connecticut prisoner proceeding
pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to obtain
damages and other relief for alleged violations of his federal
constitutional rights.1
The action concerns (1) an investigation
and prosecution that resulted in the plaintiff’s conviction and
1
The original complaint filed by the plaintiff in this
action failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
10(a), which requires that all defendants be listed in the
caption. In response, the plaintiff has filed a document that
lists thirty defendants in the caption but includes no
allegations in the body of the document. See Am. Compl. (ECF No.
5). Treating this document as the amended complaint, it is
deficient in that it fails to include any facts or a claim for
relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (complaint “must contain: (1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand
for the relief sought, which may include . . . different types of
relief”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) (“A party must state its claims
or defenses in numbered paragraphs.”). It is apparent, however,
that the pro se plaintiff intended to incorporate in this
document the allegations contained in his original complaint.
Accordingly, rather than dismiss the amended complaint and
require the plaintiff to file yet another complaint, the Court
deems the amended complaint to include the allegations contained
in the original.
imprisonment for assault in the first degree and violation of
probation and (2) a related proceeding involving forfeiture of
$1,776 in currency that was seized from the plaintiff’s home at
the time of his arrest.
The complaint asserts that the
convictions are “improper and illegal,” Compl. (ECF No. 1) ¶ 125,
and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the currency,
which has been forfeited by default, id. ¶ 128.
Named as
defendants are Norwalk police officers and supervisory personnel;
Connecticut Superior Court judges and staff; Connecticut
Appellate Court clerks; state prosecutors; the plaintiff’s
criminal defense attorney; personnel of the Connecticut Office of
Adult Probation; and witnesses in the underlying criminal case.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must review as soon as
practicable a prisoner’s complaint against governmental officers
and employees and dismiss any part of the complaint that is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted, or seeks money damages against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
To withstand review under § 1915A, a
complaint must provide factual allegations, not just legal
conclusions, and the factual allegations must support a plausible
claim for relief.
(2009).
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
A complaint satisfies the plausibility standard when it
pleads facts that allow the court to draw a reasonable inference
2
that one or more of the named defendants is liable for the
alleged constitutional violation.
Id.
Having conducted the
review required by § 1915A, the Court concludes that the
complaint must be dismissed.
I.
Summary of the Claims
Plaintiff claims, among other things, that his home was
searched by Norwalk police without a valid warrant; he was
arrested by the Norwalk police without probable cause; Norwalk
police and others fabricated a case against him by falsifying
evidence and tampering with evidence; state judges, prosecutors
and his own attorney conspired against him to coerce him to plead
guilty to the assault charge; the hearing on the violation of
probation was tainted by perjury; a Superior Court judge has
denied plaintiff’s motions to recover possession of the currency
in violation of plaintiff’s rights under state law; and personnel
in the Clerk’s Office of the Connecticut Appellate Court have
rejected his attempts to appeal the judge’s unlawful orders.
II.
Analysis
A.
The Claims Concerning the Plaintiff’s Convictions
The complaint explicitly challenges the validity of the
plaintiff’s convictions for assault and violation of probation.
See Compl. (ECF No. 1) ¶ 125 (“[B]oth of my convictions are
improper and illegal.”).
Accordingly, it is properly construed
3
as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
A federal court may not entertain a state prisoner’s claim for
habeas relief under § 2254 unless the petitioner has exhausted
state court remedies.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); see O’Sullivan
v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999).
To satisfy the exhaustion
requirement, a state prisoner must present his claims to the
highest court of the state.
See id. at 845; Galdamez v. Keane,
394 F.3d 68, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2005).
In this case, the complaint
alleges that the plaintiff commenced an action for a writ of
habeas corpus in state court on December 26, 2013, a lawyer is
representing him, and a trial is scheduled to start April 27.
See Compl. (ECF No. 1) ¶ 92.
In light of these allegations, the
Court must conclude that the plaintiff has not yet exhausted
available state court remedies.
Accordingly, to the extent the
complaint seeks to challenge the validity of the plaintiff’s
convictions for assault and violation of probation, it is
dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the
exhaustion requirement.
B.
The Claims for Damages Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff’s state court convictions also bear significantly
on his ability to bring claims for damages under § 1983.
When a
state prisoner seeks damages on a claim that necessarily
implicates the validity of a state court conviction, the prisoner
4
cannot proceed under § 1983 unless he demonstrates that the
conviction has been overturned.
477, 486-87 (1994).
See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
In this case, nearly all the claims in the
complaint necessarily implicate the validity of the plaintiff’s
convictions for assault and violation of probation, and thus may
not be brought unless and until the convictions are overturned.
The only claims that do not appear to be barred by Heck are the
claims concerning the search of the house and the forfeiture of
the currency.
Assuming these claims are not barred, they fail to
withstand review under § 1915A for other reasons.
With regard to the search of the plaintiff’s house, the
complaint alleges that the officers had a search warrant issued
by the Stamford Superior Court.
Compl. (ECF No. 1) ¶ 37.
search warrant carries a presumption of validity.
A
Overcoming
that presumption typically requires a showing that the warrant
was issued in reliance on an affidavit that was deliberately or
recklessly false with regard to an important matter.
v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978).
See Franks
In this case, the
complaint alleges that the officers lacked a valid warrant.
¶ 105, 117.
Id.
But the factual allegations of the complaint do not
permit the Court to draw a reasonable inference that the warrant
was invalid.
5
Turning to the claim regarding the forfeiture of the
currency, the plaintiff does not allege that the procedural
safeguards provided by the state with regard to forfeiture of
property violate due process.
Rather, the complaint alleges that
Superior Court Judge Gary White has unlawfully denied plaintiff’s
motions seeking to reclaim the money, and that personnel in the
Office of the Clerk of the Appellate Court, acting in excess of
their statutory authority, are denying him access to appeal the
unlawful orders.
Compl. (ECF No. 1) ¶¶ 128, 129.
These
allegations are conclusory in nature and therefore fail to
satisfy the plausibility standard.
Moreover, the plaintiff’s
§ 1983 claim regarding the forfeited currency does not provide a
basis for relief due to certain legal principles applicable to
actions in federal court arising from state court proceedings.
To the extent he is asking this Court to interfere with an
ongoing forfeiture proceeding, the Court must abstain.
See
Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S.
423, 431-32 (1982); Kirschner v. Klemons, 225 F.3d 227, 233-34
(2d Cir. 2000).
And to the extent he is seeking to appeal a
final order of forfeiture, this Court does not have jurisdiction
to review the order.
See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus.
Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291-92 (2005).
III. Conclusion
6
Accordingly, the amended complaint is hereby dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to § 1915A for failure to state a
claim under § 1983 on which relief may be granted.
Because the
complaint does not present a claim for relief under § 1983, the
Court declines to consider whether the allegations of the
complaint might be sufficient to state a claim for relief under
state law and any such claims are dismissed without prejudice.
If the plaintiff believes he can plead facts showing that
the warrant to search his house was invalid, and thus the search
violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment, he may file a
second amended complaint setting forth that claim under § 1983 on
or before April 1, 2016.
In that event, the caption must list
the defendants who are being sued for the allegedly
unconstitutional search and the body of the document must contain
factual allegations showing why each named defendant is liable
for the violation.
No other claims may be included in the second
amended complaint.
So ordered this 25th day of February, 2016.
/s/ RNC
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge
7
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?