Jones v. Bessicks et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 9/29/2016. (c/m 9/29/16 bas, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
LORENZO MISHAAD JONES,
*
Plaintiff,
*
v.
*
AMANDA M. BESSICKS, ASSISTANT
STATE’S ATTORNEY FOR CECIL
COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. GLR-16-3258
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Lorenzo Mishaad Jones’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012) Complaint (ECF No. 1) and Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2).
Because he appears indigent, the Court will grant Jones’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis. After screening Jones’s Complaint, however, the Court will dismiss it with prejudice.
Jones filed his § 1983 Complaint on September 26, 2016, seeking a jury trial, unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable relief. (ECF No. 1). Jones, who is confined at
the Maryland Reception, Diagnostic and Classification Center in Baltimore, Maryland, files suit
against Defendants Amanda M. Bessicks, Assistant State’s Attorney for Cecil County, Maryland, and
Officer Francis Wallace, detective for the Cecil County Sheriff’s Office.
Jones asserts that he was maliciously prosecuted on armed robbery and assault charges. (Id.).
He alleges that although evidence was collected by law enforcement, DNA test results were not
completed and neither photographic nor real evidence were introduced during his February 3, 2016
jury trial. Jones further alleges that clothing found at his residence does not match the victim’s
description of the suspect’s attire. He contends that the victim did not want to press charges against
him, but Bessicks and Wallace decided to pursue the criminal case and lied to the jury with “make
believe” evidence to obtain probable cause to search his apartment and arrest him. (Id.).
Before permitting the case to move forward or requiring a response from Defendants, the
Court will screen Jones’s Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) (“The court shall review, before
docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.”). As part of the screening, the Court will “identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The state court docket shows that on February 5, 2016, Jones was convicted of one count
each of armed robbery, robbery, first-degree assault, and second-degree assault. He was sentenced to
a fifteen-year term on the armed robbery count and a five-year sentence on the assault count. There
is no showing that the criminal judgments were overturned or otherwise officially rendered invalid.
State v. Jones, Case No. 07-K-15-001159 (Circuit Court for Cecil County).
See
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquirySearch.jis.
To the extent that Jones seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil rights violations
during his criminal case, the Court will dismiss his Complaint without prejudice because Jones’s
claims are not cognizable under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
The plaintiff in Heck, an Indiana state prisoner, sued two state prosecutors and a state
investigator who had participated in the investigation leading to plaintiff’s conviction. Plaintiff
alleged that defendants had knowingly destroyed evidence which was exculpatory in nature and had
2
also caused an unlawful voice identification procedure to be used at trial. The complaint sought
compensatory and monetary damages. The Supreme Court of the United States concluded that the
complaint had to be dismissed. In so doing, the Court rejected the lower court’s reasoning that a §
1983 action should be classified as a habeas corpus action:
We hold that, in order to recover damages for alleged unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render
a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or
sentence has 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, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not
been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a state prisoner
seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider 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 has already been invalidated. But if the district court
determines that the plaintiff's action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the
invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action
should be allowed to proceed in the absence of some other bar to the suit.
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87.
Here, Jones challenges the constitutionality of his convictions and incarceration and seeks
compensatory damages. Because a judgment in Jones’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity
of his criminal conviction, the Court will dismiss Jones’s Complaint.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court will GRANT Jones’s Motion for Leave to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis and DISMISS his Complaint without prejudice. A separate Order follows.
Entered this 29th day of September, 2016
/s/
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?