Wilson v. Detroit Police Department et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VICTOR LEON WILSON,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 2:12-13591
Honorable Arthur J Tarnow

v.
DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT, et. al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Victor Leon Wilson, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Earnest C.
Brooks Correctional Facility in Muskegon, Michigan, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee
in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

After careful consideration, the court

summarily dismisses the complaint.
I. BACKGROUND
In his complaint, Plaintiff names the Detroit Police Department, four individually
named Detroit police officers, a Wayne County assistant prosecutor, and two childprotective services workers, as defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants
knowingly pursued false allegations of criminal sexual conduct against him, which resulted
in Plaintiff being illegally held in jail for a period of twelve-days from January 16, 2009 until
January 27, 2009. Plaintiff attached a copy of the criminal complaint and warrant filed
against him that shows he was charged on January 2, 2009, with two counts of first-degree
criminal sexual conduct and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct.
(Plaintiff’s Exhibits C and E). Plaintiff alleges that he was falsely accused of sexually

penetrating two minor girls, and as a result, the two first-degree charges were dropped after
the preliminary examination. Plaintiff provides a copy of an order of dismissal, showing that
the first-degree criminal sexual conduct charges were dismissed by the 36th District Court
for insufficient evidence. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit F).
This did not end the matter, however. Petitioner was still bound-over for trial on
charges of second-degree criminal sexual conduct for engaging in sexual contact with the
girls. After a jury trial, he was found guilty of these offenses, and he was sentenced to
thirty-to-fifty years in prison. See People v. Wilson, No. 296307 (Mich.Ct.App. December
15, 2011).1 The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. Id. Plaintiff remains incarcerated for
this conviction.2
Petitioner seeks damages in an amount “greater than $120,000" for his wrongful pretrial imprisonment for twelve days on the original charges.
II. STANDARD
Civil rights complaints filed by a pro se prisoner are subject to the screening
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir.
2000). Section 1915(e)(2) requires district courts to screen and to dismiss complaints that
are frivolous, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or that seek monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore
v. Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). A complaint is frivolous and subject to
sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e) if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.

1

The court obtained this information from www.westlaw.com.

2

The court obtained this information from the Michigan Department of Corrections’ Offender
Tracking Information System (OTIS), which this court is permitted to take judicial notice of. See Ward v.
Wolfenbarger,323 F. Supp. 2d 818, 821, n. 3 (E.D. Mich. 2004).

2

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, when, construing the complaint in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff and accepting all the factual allegations as true, the plaintiff undoubtedly can prove
no set of facts in support if his claims that would entitle him to relief. Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996); Kline v. Roberts, 87 F.3d 176, 179 (6th Cir.
1996); Wright v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 58 F.3d 1130, 1138 (6th Cir. 1995).
In addition, “a district court may, at any time, dismiss sua sponte a complaint for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated,
unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn,
183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999)(citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff may not seek monetary damages absent a showing that his criminal
conviction have been overturned.

To recover monetary damages for an allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
conviction or sentence was reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into question by the issuance of a federal writ
of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). Because Plaintiff
does not allege that his conviction has been overturned, expunged, or called into question
by a writ of habeas corpus, his allegations relating to his criminal prosecution, conviction,
and incarceration against the defendant fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted
and must, therefore, be dismissed. See Adams v. Morris, 90 Fed. App’x. 856, 858 (6th Cir.
2004); Dekoven v. Bell, 140 F. Supp. 2d 748, 756 (E.D. Mich. 2001); See also Scheib v.
3

Grand Rapids Sheriff's Dept., 25 Fed. App’x. 276, 277 (6th Cir. 2001)(state inmate’s § 1983
claim that fabricated police records influenced charges brought against him would affect
validity of his still-standing conviction, and thus were barred by Heck rule). The fact that
Plaintiff’s first-degree criminal sexual conduct charges were dismissed and he was
convicted of the lesser offense of second-degree criminal sexual conduct does not change
the result. See Barnes v. Wright, 449 F. 3d 709, 716-17 (6th Cir. 2006);
Baker v. Wittevrongel, 363 F. App'x 146, 150 (3d Cir. 2010); St. Germain v. Isenhower, 98
F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1371-72 (S.D. Fla. 2000) (conviction on a lesser-included offense does
not constitute a favorable termination for the accused).
When a prisoner’s civil rights claim is barred by the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine, the
appropriate course for a federal district court is to dismiss the claim for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), rather than to dismiss the complaint
with prejudice as being frivolous, because the former course of action is not an adjudication
on the merits and would allow the prisoner to reassert his claims if his conviction or
sentence is latter invalidated. See Murphy, 343 F. Supp. 2d at 609. Therefore, because
the court is dismissing Plaintiff’s § 1983 complaint under Heck, the dismissal will be without
prejudice. See e.g. Finley v. Densford, 90 Fed. App’x. 137, 138 (6th Cir. 2004).
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
United States District Judge
Dated: August 28, 2012

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on August 28, 2012 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the
Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby
certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following non-registered ECF participants on
August 28, 2012: Victor Leon Wilson.
s/Michael E. Lang
Deputy Clerk to
District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
[phone]

5