Wyckoff v. Turner et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 7 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 12/1/2011. (loh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

KEANNON L. WYCKOFF,
Plaintiff,
V.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV611-099

JOHN R. TURNER, Judge; TONY
MAY; TOM WOODRUM; KEVIN
WATERS; and LYNN MILTON,
Defendants

ORDER

Plaintiff Keannon Wyckoff ("Plaintiff') filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge's
Report dated October 11, 2011, which recommended that Plaintiffs Complaint, brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, be dismissed. In his Objection, Plaintiff argues that
"challenging [J illegal procedures is always cognizable under [§] 1983" and cites Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (Doc. No. 12, p. 4).
After an independent and de novo review of the record, the undersigned concurs
with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. As discussed in Heck, and
in the Magistrate Judge's Report,
to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness

would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must
prove that the conviction or sentence 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, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A
claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence
that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus,
when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, 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.
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.
Plaintiffs first requested relief, for his conviction to be vacated, is clearly a
request that should be brought in a habeas petition. See, e. g ., Edwards v. Balisok, 520
U.S. 641 (1997); Heck, 512 U.S. 477. Plaintiffs second request for relief, for
Defendants to be held accountable for their use of allegedly illegal procedures that
allegedly violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights, should also be brought in a habeas
petition. As the Magistrate Judge noted, "[a]ny decision regarding the lawfulness or
unlawfulness of the Defendants' actions with regard to the DNA samples and the
alleged untruthful trial testimony will necessarily implicate the validity of Plaintiffs
conviction." (Doc. No. 7, p. 4). As a judgment in favor of Plaintiff would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction, Plaintiffs Complaint must be dismissed unless he
can show that his conviction has been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. 486-87. Plaintiff
has not shown that his conviction has been invalidated; therefore, his claim for damages
under § 1983 is not cognizable. I d.
Wyckoffs Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is
without merit and is overruled. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

2

Judge is adopted as the Opinion of the Court. Wyckoff s Complaint is DISMISSED. The
Clerk of Court is directed to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.
SO ORDERED,

of

4,:^

4f^'7 ,

I,-

2011.

A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA