Sifuentes v. Midland County 42nd Circuit Court, et al

Filing 16

ORDER Accepting and Adopting 8 Report and Recommendation, Overruling 9 Plaintiff's Objections, Mooting 10 . 13 , 14 Miscellaneous Motions and Dismissing Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e). Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)

Case 1:20-cv-11745-GAD-PTM ECF No. 16 filed 10/30/20

PageID.119

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID ANGEL SIFUENTES,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 20-cv-11745
v.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

MIDLAND COUNTY 42ND CIRCUIT
COURT, ET AL.,
Defendants.                           
______________                              /      

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [#8], OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
[#9], MOOTING MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS [#10, 13, 14] AND
DISMISSING ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff David Angel Sifuentes’ Complaint,
filed on June 10, 2020. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff seeks equitable and declaratory relief
due to various errors that allegedly occurred during his 2000 Midland County Circuit
Court trial and subsequent conviction. Id. at PageID.1.
This Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris, who
issued a Report and Recommendation on September 16, 2020, recommending that
this matter be dismissed pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ECF No. 8. Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation on September 25, 2020. ECF No. 9. Additionally, Plaintiff filed
a Notice and Motion for Voluntary Dismissal on October 2, 2020. ECF Nos. 10, 11.
1

Case 1:20-cv-11745-GAD-PTM ECF No. 16 filed 10/30/20

PageID.120

Page 2 of 5

He filed an Amended Notice of Voluntary Dismissal three days later. ECF No. 12.
However, Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Strike his Motions and Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal on October 25, 2020. ECF Nos. 13, 14.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s objections,
accept and adopt Magistrate Judge Morris’ Report and Recommendation, and
dismiss this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This will also render Plaintiff’s
outstanding Motions [#10, 13, 14] moot.
The instant action stems from Plaintiff’s 2000 trial and subsequent conviction
of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.520d(1)(b), and
furnishing alcohol to a minor, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 436.1701(1). The claims
asserted in his present Complaint allege various due process violations during his
trial, including denial of his right to a speedy or fair trial. See ECF No. 1, PageID.23.
The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by
Heck v. Humphrey because success on his claims would necessarily invalidate his
convictions. 512 U.S. at 486-87; Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005).
In his Objection, Plaintiff reasserts his belief that his claims of due process
violations, including denial of his right to a polygraph examination and to a fair and
speedy trial, are valid claims for relief here. See ECF No. 9, PageID.50. Plaintiff,
however, is incorrect; his arguments are characteristic claims attacking the fact of
2

Case 1:20-cv-11745-GAD-PTM ECF No. 16 filed 10/30/20

PageID.121

Page 3 of 5

his convictions and require proof that his conviction or sentence has been reversed,
expunged or declared invalid. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; see Ray v. Jefferson Cty.,
No. 3:16CV-269-GNS, 2016 WL 7013480, at *4 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 29, 2016), aff'd
sub nom. Ray v. Jefferson Cty., Kentucky, No. 16-6850, 2017 WL 6759307 (6th Cir.
Dec. 5, 2017) (explaining that “[i]f a ruling on a § 1983 claim would necessarily
imply the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the
§ 1983 claim must be dismissed, not for lack of exhaustion of state remedies, but
because it is simply not cognizable until the criminal judgment has been terminated
in the plaintiff's favor.”) (additional citation omitted). Plaintiff fails to meet this
standard.
Further,

Plaintiff

objects

to

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report

and

Recommendation by arguing that the Heck exception, which allows certain litigants
to bring a § 1983 action if habeas is unavailable, applies here. See ECF No. 9,
PageID.46. But Plaintiff’s characterization of the case law is incorrect. There are
only very narrow circumstances where “Heck's favorable-termination requirement
cannot be imposed against § 1983 plaintiffs who lack a habeas option for the
vindication of their federal rights.” Powers v. Hamilton Cty. Pub. Def. Comm'n, 501
F.3d 592, 603 (6th Cir. 2007). These include instances where, for example, a
plaintiff received only a civil fine or was “sentenced to such a short period of time
so as to be precluded from filing a habeas-type petition.” Ray v. Jefferson Cty., No.
3

Case 1:20-cv-11745-GAD-PTM ECF No. 16 filed 10/30/20

PageID.122

Page 4 of 5

3:16CV-269-GNS, 2016 WL 7013480, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 29, 2016), aff'd sub
nom. Ray v. Jefferson Cty., Kentucky, No. 16-6850, 2017 WL 6759307 (6th Cir. Dec.
5, 2017).
As in Ray, Plaintiff’s facts do not demonstrate that he lacked the ability to
seek relief under habeas. Indeed, they indicate the opposite; Plaintiff filed an
unsuccessful habeas petition challenging his state court conviction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 in 2003. See Sifuentes v. Prelesnik, No. 1:03-CV-637, 2006 WL 2347529,
at *1 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 11, 2006). The Heck exception applies to plaintiffs who are
otherwise barred from vindicating their rights at all. Plaintiff has already obtained
prior habeas review of his incarceration and has been subsequently denied
authorization to file successive habeas motions by the Sixth Circuit. The Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s case does not fall within the Heck
exception and therefore precludes his ability to bring his claims under § 1983.
Accordingly, this matter is subject to dismissal because it “fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court hereby
ADOPTS and ACCEPTS Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’ Report and
Recommendation [#8] as this Court’s factual findings and conclusions of law.
Plaintiff’s objections [#9] are OVERRULED. This cause of action is DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff’s outstanding Motions are thus rendered
MOOT [#10, 13, 14].
4

Case 1:20-cv-11745-GAD-PTM ECF No. 16 filed 10/30/20

PageID.123

Page 5 of 5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Gershwin A. Drain_________________
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 30, 2020

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
October 30, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Teresa McGovern
Case Manager

5