Odom v. Evans
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ANTOINE DESHAWN ODOM,
Case No. 13-14047
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Antoine Deshawn Odom (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner at Marquette
Branch Prison in Marquette, Michigan, recently filed a pro se civil rights complaint
against Wayne County Sheriff Warren Evans. Plaintiff seeks monetary and
injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional
In his Complaint, Plaintiff appears to allege that, on September 28, 2004,
deputy sheriffs conspired with his court-appointed attorney to prevent him from
addressing the state trial court at his guilty plea proceeding. Plaintiff claims that he
never admitted to being guilty and is actually innocent of any criminal charges. He
also contends that he was promised a sentence of ten to twenty-three months,
which he has already served.
In addition to money damages, Plaintiff seeks to have the criminal charges
against him set aside, his sentence vacated or reduced, and all fines and court fees
eliminated. He further wants to be immediately discharged from the custody of the
Michigan Department of Corrections and to have flowers and jewelry sent to his
II. Legal Standard
Due to Plaintiff’s indigence, the Court has granted him permission to
proceed without prepayment of the fees and costs for this action. As such, his
Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. The Sixth
Circuit has explained:
When screening a prisoner complaint, the district court must examine
both § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A. If the civil action seeks redress from
a governmental entity, officer, or employee, the district court must
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, which (a) is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or (b) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from monetary relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A.
Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1036 (6th Cir. 2001). A complaint is frivolous
if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989).
“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must set forth facts that,
when construed favorably, establish (1) the deprivation of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States (2) caused by a person acting under the
color of state law.” Sigley v. Parma Heights, 437 F.3d 527, 533 (6th Cir. 2006)
(citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S. Ct. 2250 (1988); Searcy v. City of
Dayton, 38 F.3d 282, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)). While a complaint need not contain
“detailed factual allegations,” the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007). “So, to survive scrutiny under §§
1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), ‘a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Hill
v. Lappin, 630 F.3d. 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.
Although his Complaint is difficult to read, it is clear that Plaintiff is
challenging his conviction, sentence, and present confinement. “[W]hen a state
prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and
the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a
speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas
corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 1841 (1973).
to recover damages for allegedly 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.
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994) (footnote
omitted). Heck and its progeny, “taken together, indicate that 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.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 1248 (2005)
(emphasis in original).
Plaintiff has not shown that his conviction or sentence was invalidated by
state officials or called into question by a federal court on habeas corpus review,
and success in this action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his
confinement or its duration. Thus, his complaint is barred by Heck.
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim for relief.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is summarily DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this decision would be
frivolous and could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge
v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 443-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 920 (1962); McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds
by LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013).
Dated: October 15, 2013
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Antoine Deshawn Odom, #228931
Marquette Branch Prison
1960 U.S. Hwy. 41 South
Marquette, MI 49855
A dismissal under Heck is without prejudice. Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d
800, 804 (6th Cir. 1999).
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?