Newson v. Blaisdell et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff is granted until September 4, 2018, in which to show good cause, in writing, to the Honorable Sam A. Crow, United States District Judge, why Plaintiff's Complaint should not be dismissed. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 08/14/18. Mailed to pro se party Devoris Antoine Newson by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

DEVORIS ANTOINE NEWSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 17-3212-SAC

KRISTA BLAISDELL, STEVEN
HORNBAKER, WYATT CHARLSON,
and TONDA JONES HILL,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time of
filing, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the Geary County Detention Center in Junction City,
Kansas. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks release
from custody, dismissal of his state court criminal case, Case No. 2017-cr-000387, and 25
million dollars for “pain and suffering, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, and freedom.” Plaintiff
sues the state court judge, the prosecuting attorney, defense counsel and a police officer involved
in the underlying charges.
On May 7, 2018, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order and Order to Show Cause
(Doc. 11) (“MOSC”), ordering Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed due
to the deficiencies discussed in the MOSC. In the MOSC, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s
allegations in his Complaint involve his state criminal proceedings. See Case No. 2017-cr000387, filed April 24, 2017, in Geary County District Court. At the time the Court entered the

1

MOSC, an online Kansas District Court Records Search indicated that Plaintiff’s state court case
was currently pending, and a preliminary hearing was scheduled for May 22, 2018.
Plaintiff has filed a response to the Court’s MOSC, arguing that his state court criminal
case has been “resolved” and is “no longer pending.” (Doc.12.) An online Kansas District Court
Records Search indicates that a plea and a global agreement on Plaintiff’s state court cases (17cr-797, 17-cr-527 and 17-cr-387) were entered on May 18, 2018, and a “Kansas Sentencing
Guidelines Journal Entry of Judgment” was entered on May 21, 2018. A Plea Agreement and
Waiver of Rights was also entered on May 21, 2018.
The Court’s MOSC found that to the extent Plaintiff challenges the validity of his
sentence or conviction, his federal claim must be presented in habeas corpus. However, a
petition for habeas corpus is premature until Plaintiff has exhausted available state court
remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) (requiring exhaustion of available state court
remedies). The MOSC also states that if Plaintiff has been convicted and a judgment on
Plaintiff’s claim in this case would necessarily imply the invalidity of that conviction, the claim
may be barred by Heck. In Heck v. Humphrey, the United States Supreme Court held that when
a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 action, the district court must consider the following:
whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity
of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless
the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been
invalidated.
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a § 1983
damages claim that necessarily implicates the validity of the plaintiff’s conviction or sentence is
not cognizable unless and until the conviction or sentence is overturned, either on appeal, in a
collateral proceeding, or by executive order. Id. at 486–87.

2

Plaintiff’s response merely states that his state criminal proceeding has concluded, but he
does not address: 1) the Heck bar; or 2) the fact that a challenge to the validity of his sentence or
conviction must be presented in habeas corpus after proper exhaustion. The Court will give
Plaintiff an opportunity to show cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed as barred by
Heck, or if Plaintiff is challenging his sentence or conviction, why his claim should not be
presented in habeas corpus after full exhaustion of available state court remedies.
Response Required
Plaintiff is required to show good cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed for
the reasons stated herein.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff is granted until September 4, 2018,
in which to show good cause, in writing, to the Honorable Sam A. Crow, United States District
Judge, why Plaintiff’s Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons stated herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated in Topeka, Kansas, on this 14th day of August, 2018.
s/ Sam A. Crow
Sam A. Crow
U.S. Senior District Judge

3