Jeffrey v. Simms et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 11 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 04/14/2011. cc:counsel (CSD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DIVISION OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-00332-TBR
RICHARD JEFFREY

PLAINTIFF

v.
ANN SIMMS, individually and as
City Administrator of the City of Prospect, Kentucky
and
DEBORAH SKAGGS, individually and as
Deputy City Clerk of City of Prospect, Kentucky
and
MARVIN A. WILSON, individually and as Chief
of Police of the City of Prospect, Kentucky
and
DENNIS WINE, individually and as Lieutenant
Of Police of City of Prospect, Kentucky
and
CITY OF PROSPECT, KENTUCKY

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant has moved to dismiss the above case under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994). Plaintiff has responded, and Defendant has replied. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for
adjudication. However, binding precedent precludes dismissal under Heck given the instant
facts. In no uncertain terms, the Sixth Circuit has stated that Heck would not serve as a bar to
claims when habeas relief is unavailable. Powers v. Hamilton County Public Defender Comm’n,
501 F.3d 592, 603 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Heck’s favorable-termination requirement cannot be
imposed against § 1983 plaintiffs who lack a habeas option for the vindication of their federal

rights.”). Plaintiff has suffered only a fine in his underlying municipal case, and habeas is
accordingly unavailable. Id. (“Plaintiff’s § 1983 suit [can] proceed despite noncompliance with
the favorable-termination requirement because the plaintiff had been assessed only a monetary
fine in his criminal proceeding and thus was ineligible for habeas relief.” (citing Leather v. Ten
Eyck, 180 F.3d 420, 424 (2d Cir. 1999))).1 Accordingly, the issue of whether the underlying case
was civil or criminal is moot - even assuming, arguendo, that the underlying case was criminal,
Heck still does not serve as a bar. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss (DN 11) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 14, 2011

1

Because a Heck dismissal is unavailable due to the lack of a habeas remedy, this Court
does not reach and expresses no opinion on whether the underlying proceeding was criminal in
nature.
2