VANHORN v. CITY OF MUNCIE et al

Filing 9

Entry and Order Dismissing Action: For the reasons explained above, the complaint fails to survive the screening required by ' 1915A because it fails to contain a legally viable claim against the defendants. Dismissal of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b) is therefore mandatory, Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002), and judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. The dismissal shall be without prejudice ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/3/2012.(DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

WILLIAM JOSEPH VANHORN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF MUNCIE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-245-WTL-DKL

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
William Joseph Vanhorn is a state prisoner who alleges that on December 14,
2008, he was unlawfully arrested, searched, and detained at the Delaware County
Jail. As a result of the allegedly illegal arrest, search, and detention, the police
acquired evidence used to convict Vanhorn of Burglary, for which he is currently
serving a fifteen year sentence. Vanhorn is appealing his conviction. Vanhorn seeks
money damages and judgment declaring that his search, arrest, and incarceration
violate the United States Constitution.
Because Vanhorn is a prisoner, the complaint is subject to the screening
required by 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th
Cir. 2006). Pursuant to this statute, "[a] complaint is subject to dismissal for failure
to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show that plaintiff is not entitled to
relief." Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007). The plausibility requirement of
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009)(“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.”), is defeated, however, when a plaintiff pleads
himself out of court “by alleging facts that show there is no viable claim.@ Pugh v.
Tribune Co., 521 F.3d 686, 699 (7th. Cir. 2008); see also Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)(“Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) can be based
on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged
under a cognizable legal theory.”).

Vanhorn’s claims are governed by Wallace v. Kato, 127 S. Ct. 1091, 1098
(2007). Wallace involved a claim of unlawful arrest and detention without legal
process, which, if the plaintiff prevailed, would render the criminal conviction
invalid. The Supreme Court stated:
If a plaintiff files a false arrest claim before he has been convicted (or
files any other claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a
pending or anticipated criminal trial), it is within the power of the
district court, and in accord with common practice, to stay the civil
action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is
ended. See [Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,] at 487-488, n.8, 114 S.
Ct. 2364 (noting that "abstention may be an appropriate response to
the parallel state-court proceedings"); Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
517 U.S. 706, 730, 116 S. Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996). If the plaintiff
is ultimately convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn that
conviction, Heck will require dismissal; otherwise, the civil action will
proceed, absent some other bar to suit. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S.
641, 649, 117 S. Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997); Heck, 512 U.S., at
487, 114 S. Ct. 2364.
Vanhorn’s complaint shows that he is raising precisely the type of claims noted in
Wallace, that he has been convicted, and that his challenge to that conviction is
ongoing. It follows, then, that Vanhorn’s unlawful arrest, search and detention
claims are not cognizable under ' 1983 untilBand unlessBhis state criminal
conviction is resolved in his favor.
For the reasons explained above, the complaint fails to survive the screening
required by ' 1915A because it fails to contain a legally viable claim against the
defendants. Dismissal of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b) is therefore
mandatory, Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002),
and judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. The dismissal shall be
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 5/03/12
Distribution:
William Joseph Vanhorn
883134
Putnamville Correctional Facility
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana