Stovall v. Sikes et al

Filing 51

ORDER ADOPTING re 48 Report and Recommendations dismissing this case. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 6/18/2014. (loh)

r
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

DWAYNE STOVALL,

'

-

)

Plaintiff,
CASE NO. CV412-204

V.

STATE DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
LIBERTY COUNTY SHERIFF STEVE
SIKES, and LIBERTY COUNTY JAIL)
ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS FRANKS,
Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 48), to which objections have been
filed (Doc. 50). As is discussed at length in the report
and recommendation, Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted because it does not
allege that any violations of his Sixth Amendment rights
actually prejudiced his defense. In addition, while
Plaintiff attempts to cure this defect by including
allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in his objections,
his claims are still fatally flawed. Although Plaintiff
states that he "has not sought nor seeks a remedy to his
conviction" (Doc. 50 at 6), his assertions that his defense
was doomed by violations of his right to confidential
communications with his attorney necessarily call into

question the lawfulness of his conviction.' As a result,
these claims are simply not cognizable under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 at this stage. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 487 (1994) . For Plaintiff to pursue damages under
§ 1983, he must first establish that his conviction has
"been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive
order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to
make such determination, or called into question by a
federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Id.
Accordingly, the report and recommendation is ADOPTED as
the Court's opinion and this case is hereby DISMISSED. 2 The
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED this

/8day of June 2014.

WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

' Plaintiff originally filed this case in response to
incidents occurring while he was in pretrial detention for
child molestation charges, but he has subsequently been
convicted and sentenced on those charges. (Doc. 50 at 4.)
2
Because this case is dismissed, Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc, 35) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
2