Jones et al v. Welsh et al
Filing
4
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/9/2011. All Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff Rodriguez Jones are dismissed because they have not signed the complaint. Plaintiff Jones cannot pursue claims on behalf of others. Plaintiff Jones' complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Heck v Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). All pending motions are denied as moot, and this case is closed. This dismissal shall count as one of Plaintiff Jones' three allotted "strikes" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). If Plaintiff Jones wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 09 December, 2011 11:52:54 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
RODRIGUEZ D. JONES,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
DETECTIVE STEPHEN WELSH,
et al.,
Defendants.
11-CV-3433
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in federal prison in Louisiana, has
filed a pro se complaint alleging misconduct which resulted in his
conviction in Springfield, Illinois, for conspiracy to distribute crack
cocaine. He alleges a host of improprieties, including the planting of
evidence and the suborning of false testimony. He also appears to pursue
similar claims on behalf of other Plaintiffs who allegedly suffered the
same fate, but Plaintiff cannot pursue claims on behalf of others.
Plaintiff seeks forty million dollar in damages.
1
The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court is required by § 1915A to review a
Complaint filed by a prisoner against a governmental entity or officer
and, through such process, to identify cognizable claims, dismissing any
claim that is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bars a prisoner from
bringing a civil action or appeal in forma pauperis if that prisoner has at
least three prior cases which were dismissed on one of these grounds.
Plaintiff's claims go to the validity of his conviction, which means
he has no action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless and until his conviction
is overturned. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). This rule
prevents an "end-run" around habeas corpus procedures:
[A] section 1983 suit for damages that would “necessarily
imply” the invalidity . . . of an inmate's conviction, or
“necessarily imply” the invalidity of the length of an inmate's
sentence, is not cognizable under § 1983 until the inmate
obtains favorable termination of a state, or federal habeas,
challenge to his conviction or sentence. . . . This “favorable
termination” requirement is necessary to prevent inmates
from doing directly through damages actions what they could
not do directly by seeking injunctive relief-challenge the fact
or duration of their confinement without complying with the
2
procedural limitations of the federal habeas statute.
Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646-47 (2004), quoting Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. at 487 (1994)(other citations omitted). “[A]
prisoner ... has no cause of action under § 1983 unless and until the
conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by
the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 489.
Plaintiff’s conviction has not been invalidated. In fact, the Seventh
Circuit affirmed Plaintiff’s conviction in a published order in 2001. U.S.
v. Jones, 275 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2001). Further, Judge Scott denied
Plaintiff’s habeas corpus petition in 2003, a ruling also affirmed by the
Seventh Circuit. Jones v. USA, 03-3107 (C.D. Ill., Judge Scott).
Accordingly, Plaintiff has no cause of action at this time for his alleged
wrongful conviction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) All Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff Rodriguez Jones are dismissed
because they have not signed the complaint. Plaintiff Jones cannot
pursue claims on behalf of others.
3
2) Plaintiff Jones’ complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). All pending
motions are denied as moot, and this case is closed.
3) Plaintiff Jones’ petition to proceed in forma pauperis is granted
for the purposes of collecting the filing fee in installments (d/e 2). The
clerk is directed to calculate and assess Plaintiff Jones’ initial partial
payment.
4) This dismissal shall count as one of Plaintiff Jones’ three allotted
“strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). See In re Jones, 652
F.3d 36, 37 (C.A.D.C. 2011)(dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey for
failure to state a claim is a “strike”). The Clerk of the Court is directed
to record Plaintiff's strike in the three-strike log.
5) If Plaintiff Jones wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a
notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis
should set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be
4
liable for the $455 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the
appeal. Plaintiff may also be assessed another “strike” by the Court of
Appeals if his appeal is dismissed for one of the reasons stated in §
1915(g).
ENTERED: December 9, 2011
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?