Singleton v. Alcala et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Pla's federal claims made under 42 USC 1983 will be dismissed w prejudice. As the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and shall dismiss them w/o prejudice. To the extent the dfts have raised the issue of expiration of the statute of limitations in their 12 Motion to Dismiss, their motion is also GRANTED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 12/16/2015.(SCD)cc: COR,Pro Se Pla(via US Mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
AT LEXINGTON
ERNEST WILLIAM SINGLETON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
V.
HECTOR ALCALA, et al.,
Defendants.

***

***

Civil No. 5: 15-131-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

***

***

This matter is again before the Court upon its own motion to
conduct screening, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 1915(e), as
well as to address the Motion to Dismiss filed on behalf of certain
named and unnamed Kentucky State Police (“KSP”) officers [DE 12].
The Court has twice ordered Plaintiff Singleton to show cause why
his claims should not be dismissed [DE 19 and 22] and, having
considered both his original response and his most recent response
[DE 21 and 23], concludes that Plaintiff’s claims should be
dismissed over his objections for the reasons stated in its Orders
to Show Cause and as clarified and further set forth in this
Memorandum Opinion and Order.
In an interesting turn of events, Plaintiff argues in his
most recent response [DE 23] that his federal claims should be
dismissed without prejudice in light of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
1

447, 489-90 (1994) (holding that “a § 1983 cause of action for
damages attributable to an [allegedly] unconstitutional conviction
or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has
been invalidated.”) because his federal claim has not yet accrued,
a proposition that he had previously disavowed.

[See DE 21.]

His

argument does nothing to dissuade the Court of its conclusion that
his claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has accrued as
articulated in its Order of November 20, 2015 [DE 22] nor to
persuade the Court that Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007), does
not control in the present matter.

See Hornback v. Lexington-

Fayette Urban Cty. Gov't, 905 F. Supp. 2d 747, 749 (E.D. Ky. 2012)
(applying Wallace’s holding that Heck “should not be extended to
delay accrual or the running of the statute of limitations for
actions which would impugn an anticipated future conviction” in
the context of Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim).
As explained in the Court’s second order to show cause,
because all of the facts underlying Singleton’s cause of action
were complete and known or could have been known to him at the
time of the investigatory actions of which he complains in his
§ 1983 claim, the statute of limitations began to run at the latest
on June 12, 2012.

[Amended Complaint, DE 18 at ¶ 32; Page ID# 92

(alleging that a false MRI report was provided to and, presumably,
used by a confidential informant in the course of the investigation
on June 12, 2012);] see Bonner v. Perry, 564 F.3d 424, 430–31 (6th
2

Cir.2009) (holding that Kentucky's one year statute of limitations
period applies to § 1983 actions). Because Plaintiff did not bring
the present action until nearly three years after the last action
of which he complains, [see Complaint, DE 1 (filed on May 12,
2015),] this action was untimely filed, and his claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 are now barred by operation of the statute of
limitations.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s federal claims made under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 will be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Further, as the Court

has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,
it now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining
prejudice.

state-law

claims

and

shall

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

dismiss

them

without

To the extent that

Defendants have raised the issue of the expiration of the statute
of limitations in their Motion to Dismiss [DE 12], albeit in a
skeletal argument, their motion is also GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This the 16th day of December, 2015.

3