POYNTER v. RUSSO et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 12, 2013. (lcegs2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
________________________________
)
WILLIAM D. POYNTER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
) Civil Action No. 13-1129 (EGS)
v.
)
)
LINDA RUSSO and
)
JACQUELINE SULLIVAN,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil rights action under Bivens, alleging
that defendants, who served as court reporters during his trial
in this Court, knowingly and intentionally allowed the official
transcripts of plaintiff’s trial to reflect inaccurate testimony
and that those transcripts concealed prosecutorial misconduct.
The Court, upon sua sponte review of plaintiff’s complaint,
will dismiss the complaint under the rule announced in Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and applied to Bivens actions in
Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340-41 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

In

Heck v. Humphrey, the plaintiff claimed that prosecutors and
police investigators involved in his criminal prosecution had
engaged in unlawful conduct that led to his arrest and
conviction.

512 U.S. at 479.

The Supreme Court held that a

plaintiff cannot pursue a civil claim where the recovery on that

claim would imply the invalidity of a criminal conviction unless
that plaintiff first establishes that the conviction has been
overturned.

Id. at 486.

In order to determine whether a Bivens

claim is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, the district court “must
consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence;
if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the
plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has
already been invalidated.”

Id. at 487.

Here, plaintiff has not established that the conviction has
been overturned; indeed, plaintiff is currently appealing his
conviction.

See United States v. Poynter, 07-cr-48 (D.D.C.

filed Mar. 1, 2007).

Thus, the only question that remains is

whether plaintiff’s claims would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his conviction or sentence.
they would.

The Court finds that

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the errors in

the transcripts “conceal prosecutorial misconduct” and violate
plaintiff’s right to due process.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s

claims in this action necessarily imply the invalidity of his
conviction or sentence, and must be dismissed.

2

In light of the immediate disposition of this case, the
Court will vacate its Order requiring plaintiff to pay any
portion of the filing fee from his prisoner trust fund account.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
August 12, 2013

3