Wynn v. Russellville Rural Police Dept et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 6/4/24: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants motion to dismiss [DN 13 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions currently pending are DENIED as moot. cc: Counsel, Plaintiff(pro se) (DJT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23CV-00087-JHM
PATRICK JAY WYNN

PLAINTIFF

V.
SETH WHITTAKER, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a motion by Defendants Seth Whittaker and Chase
McCoy to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). [DN 13]. Plaintiff filed a
response [DN 18], and Defendants filed a reply [DN 19]. Fully briefed, this matter is ripe for
decision.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Patrick Jay Wynn filed the instant pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [DN 1].
Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested without a warrant on October 20, 2022, by Defendants
Officers Seth Whittaker and Chase McCoy “leading to the illegal search and seizure of Plaintiff.”
The Court conducted an initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and allowed
Fourth Amendment individual-capacity claims to proceed against Defendants Whittaker and
McCoy for illegal search and seizure. [DN 7]. Defendants have now filed a motion to dismiss
arguing that since Plaintiff filed his complaint, he has entered a guilty plea to the charges associated
with the incident alleged in the complaint and, as such, his claims are Heck-barred. [DN 13]; see
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)). “[A] district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers,
USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466
(6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)). “But the district court need not accept a ‘bare assertion of
legal conclusions.’” Tackett, 561 F.3d at 488 (quoting Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58
F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995)). Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be
held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991), “[o]ur duty to
be ‘less stringent’ with pro se complaints does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations.”
McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation omitted).
In resolving motions to dismiss, a court may consider the well-pled factual allegations in
the complaint, exhibits attached to or incorporated by reference into the complaint, matters of
public record, and records of which the Court may take judicial notice. See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor
Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,
528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008); J.M. by Evans v. Hatfield, 596 F. Supp. 3d 796, 801 (W.D. Ky.
2022).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the principles set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
486–87 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner could not state a cognizable

2

claim under § 1983 for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or for “harm caused by actions
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid” unless a prisoner showed that
the conviction or sentence had been “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.” Id. (footnote omitted). “[C]ivil tort
actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal
judgments.” Id. at 486. This principle holds true whether the plaintiff seeks damages or equitable
relief. Wilkerson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2005) (“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is
barred (absent prior invalidation)—no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no
matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison
proceedings)—if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of
confinement or its duration.”).
After Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, he pleaded guilty in Logan Circuit Court to some of
the state criminal charges levied against him arising out of the events that occurred October 20,
2022. The Court takes judicial notice that in Commonwealth v. Wynn, No. 22-CR-00374, in the
Logan Circuit Court, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to one count of resisting arrest, one count of
trafficking in a controlled substance, and four counts of possession of a controlled substance. See
Commonwealth v. Wynn, No. 22-CR-00374 (Logan Circuit Court). The Logan Circuit Court
sentenced Plaintiff to a total of twelve years imprisonment.
Plaintiff’s allegations about the illegal search and seizure of evidence calls into question
the validity of his state criminal conviction and because Plaintiff’s conviction has not been
reversed on appeal or called into question in any of the ways articulated by Heck, he cannot proceed
with this action. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment

3

rights by conducting an unlawful search and seizure. The search in question led to discovery of
the drugs and the resulting charges. In turn, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to the drug charges. “Courts
have routinely found Fourth Amendment claims Heck-barred in similar circumstances where the
seized evidence was essential to the plaintiff’s conviction.” Maxwell v. Fields, No. 1:23-CV-319,
2023 WL 8284236, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2023); see also Holson v. Good, 579 F. App’x 363,
365 (6th Cir. 2014) (applying Heck bar to Fourth Amendment claim challenging a search that
produced evidence essential to plaintiff’s state-court conviction). The appropriate place for
Plaintiff to challenge the validity of his conviction is in the Kentucky state courts, including
through an appeal. Bottom line, even if his claims here are meritorious, Plaintiff’s claims are
barred by Heck unless he gets his conviction overturned. See McNeal v. Katenbach, No. 5:22-CVP102-JHM, 2023 WL 3443251, at *3 (W.D. Ky. May 12, 2023); Johnson v. Piper, No. 4:21-CV00089-JHM, 2022 WL 9497271, at *2–3 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 14, 2022); Reid v. Hopkins Cnty. Fiscal
Ct., No. 4:21-CV-P14-JHM, 2021 WL 5435241, at *6 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 19, 2021); Vick v.
Shoemaker, No. 4:19-CV-P188-JHM, 2020 WL 4450965, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 3, 2020).
Accordingly, these claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss
[DN 13] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions currently pending are DENIED as
moot.

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
4414.014

June 4, 2024

4