Watkins v. Sylvester et al

Filing 13

ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 12/6/2016. For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Dismiss 7 is GRANTED, and the Complaint 1 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This matter is now terminated. See full written Order. (VH, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 06 December, 2016 10:15:50 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JORDAN WATKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRYAN SYLVESTER, BROCK LAVIN,
and CITY OF PEORIA,
,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-1268

ORDER
This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint and Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss [7] is
GRANTED, and the Complaint [1] is DISMISSED.
DISCUSSION
This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, Jordan Watkins, alleges
that on or about July 19, 2014, he was subjected false arrest and that the officers “planted
evidence on him.” In his response, Watkins indicates that his criminal case is still pending.
Watkins’ challenge to his arrest is non-cognizable under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 484-87 (1994), and its progeny, as a suit for damages challenging the validity of an
underlying conviction under § 1983 does not accrue until the underlying conviction or sentence
has been invalidated. Id. The Supreme Court has recently confirmed that “a state prisoner’s
§1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation [of the underlying conviction]) -- no matter the
relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state
conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) – if success in that action would

necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 125
S.Ct.1242, 1248 (2005),summarizing the rule of law from Preiser, 411 U.S. 475, Heck, 512 U.S.
at 477, and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997).
The Seventh Circuit has recognized that Heck and related cases bar §1983 suits by
individuals facing prosecution, as well as those who have already been convicted. "[I]f a prisoner
or an individual facing prosecution seeks damages using §1983 for an alleged violation of his
civil rights, a district court must first determine whether 'a judgment in favor of the plaintiff
would necessarily imply the invalidity' of the plaintiff's actual or potential conviction." Wiley v.
City of Chicago, 361 F.3d 994, 996 (7th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff’s complaint is clearly an attack on his state court guilty plea and conviction.
These claims, if granted, would invalidate the Plaintiff’s actual conviction. As Watkins’
sentence and conviction have not been invalidated and reportedly remain pending in state court,
Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed without prejudice as premature. This matter is now
terminated. All existing deadlines are vacated, and any other pending matters are moot.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Dismiss [7] is GRANTED, and the
Complaint [1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This matter is now terminated.
ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2016.

s/ James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
Chief United States District Judge

2