Haynes v. Richards et al

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING Case Without Prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, and DIRECTS the clerk to close this case., ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 11/17/20. (mlc)

USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00368-WCL-SLC document 9 filed 11/17/20 page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
JARED L. HAYNES, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO. 1:20-CV-368-WCL-SLC

KAREN E. RICHARDS, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Jared L. Haynes, Sr., a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF 2.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must screen
the complaint to determine whether it states a claim for relief. The court must bear in
mind that “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
The complaint is somewhat difficult to parse, but it can be discerned from the
complaint and attachments, as well as public court records, that Mr. Haynes was
convicted of rape in Allen County in 2018, for which he is serving a 40-year sentence.1
See Haynes v. State, 126 N.E.3d 67 (Table), 2019 WL 2220513 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). He sues
the prosecutors, his attorneys, the trial judge, and others involved in the case, claiming
wrongful conviction, malicious prosecution, and related claims. He alleges that he is
innocent and seeks monetary damages, among other relief.

The court can consider public records in determining whether the complaint states a claim for
relief. See FED. R. EVID. 201; Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 647 (7th Cir. 2018).
1

USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00368-WCL-SLC document 9 filed 11/17/20 page 2 of 2

Upon review, Mr. Haynes fails to state a claim for relief. To the extent he is
seeking release from custody based on his alleged innocence, he cannot do so in this
civil rights action. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488 (1973). Instead, his sole remedy
lies in habeas corpus. Id. Nor can he pursue claims for money damages for wrongful
conviction or malicious prosecution, because such claims rest on a presumption that his
conviction is invalid.2 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). These claims cannot
be brought unless and until his conviction is “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.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. These claims must be dismissed without prejudice.
Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 839 (7th Cir. 2011).
For these reasons, the court DISMISSES this action without prejudice pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and DIRECTS the clerk to close this case.
SO ORDERED on November 17, 2020.
s/William C. Lee
JUDGE WILLIAM C. LEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 To the extent Mr. Haynes is trying to initiate federal criminal charges against the defendants, he
has no authority to do so as a private citizen. See United States v. Palumbo Bros., Inc., 145 F.3d 850, 865 (7th
Cir. 1998) (“[C]riminal prosecution is an executive function within the exclusive prerogative of the
Attorney General.”).

2