Cheatham-Bey v. Waters et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion to supplement response to notice and order to show cause 12 is granted. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 06/12/18. Mailed to pro se party William C. Cheatham-Bey by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

WILLIAM C. CHEATHAM-BEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 18-3032-SAC

MEGAN WATERS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order dated April
17, 2018, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court found that Count I of
Plaintiff’s complaint was subject to dismissal because Plaintiff was attempting to bring a claim on
behalf of another person. A § 1983 claim must be based on the violation of Plaintiff’s personal
rights and not the rights of someone else. Archuleta v. McShan, 897 F.2d 495, 497 (10th Cir.
1990). As for Count II of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court determined that Plaintiff's claim is barred
by Heck v. Humphrey as an improper challenge to his probation revocation under the guise of a §
1983 action, unless Plaintiff could show the revocation has already been invalidated. See Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Crow v. Penry, 102 F.3d 1086, 1087 (10th Cir. 1996).
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s response to the show cause order (Doc. 11) and a motion to attach
exhibits to that response (Doc. 12). Plaintiff’s motion is granted, and the exhibits have been
considered by the Court.
1

In his response, Plaintiff makes several arguments why his probation should not have been
revoked and arguments about defects in the process. However, Plaintiff does not address the Heck
bar. As the Court explained in the order to show cause, until the revocation of his probation has
been reversed on appeal or through a habeas corpus action, this civil rights lawsuit is premature
and must be dismissed.
Plaintiff has not shown good cause why his complaint should not be dismissed. Count I of
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and Count II is barred as
premature under Heck. Therefore, the complaint must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to supplement response to notice
and order to show cause (Doc. 12) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: This 12th day of June, 2018, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/_Sam A. Crow_____
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

2