McKinney v. Bresnahan et al

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, denying 2 8 MOTIONS for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 4 MOTION for Service of Process at Government Expense filed by Kevin McKinney. The Court has considered Plaintiff's Complaint and Supplement and has determined the claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 10/29/2014. (rlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KEVIN MCKINNEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 14-cv-00278-SMY-PMF

RICHARD BRESNAHAN, et al,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kevin McKinney’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court previously reserved ruling on the motion and allowed
Plaintiff to file a supplement to his Complaint explaining the facts that gave rise to the violations
alleged in the Complaint. Plaintiff filed a Supplement and Memorandum (Doc. 12) on October
6, 2014 with additional facts and documentation to support his initial Complaint.
A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without pre-payment of fees. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma
pauperis or can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious or fails to state a
claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). The test for determining if an action is frivolous or
without merit is whether the plaintiff can make a rational argument on the law or facts in support
of the claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241,
1247 (7th Cir. 1983). When assessing a petition to proceed in forma pauperis, a district court
should inquire into the merits of the claims, and if the court finds them to be frivolous, it should
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982).
Plaintiff alleges county prosecutors, law enforcement officers and a judge conspired,
denied due process, ignored factual evidence that he had been denied counsel, manipulated court

documents, provided false information and committed various other acts that violated his civil
rights from 1985 until his discharge from probation in 1992. He claims to have recently
discovered new information about the terms of his 1986 plea agreement which prompted him to
move the state court to vacate his judgment in 2012. The Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri dismissed Plaintiff’s motion as untimely and without merit under the cited rule.
Plaintiff appealed, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Plaintiff’s Complaint in the instant action seeks money damages and injunctive relief due to the
alleged malicious prosecution and unlawful conviction. In his Supplement, he adds a prayer to
vacate his conviction.
While these are serious allegations, this Court is barred from considering Plaintiff’s
action. Civil actions seeking damages for harm arising from a criminal conviction are barred
unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid or called into
question by a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). Under
Heck, the alleged unconstitutional events that occurred from 1985 until 1992, which rest on the
same facts that surround his criminal conviction, cannot be addressed by this Court unless
Plaintiff’s conviction is expunged or otherwise resolved.
Accordingly, Heck renders Plaintiff’s claim legally frivolous. The Court therefore
DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and DISMISSES this action with
prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 29, 2014
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE
2