Vertin v. Hatty

Filing 8

OPINION and ORDER DISMISSING THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (Bankston, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DENNIS VERTIN, #135167,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-15110
HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

MICHAEL P. HATTY,
Defendant.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
I.

Introduction
Michigan prisoner Dennis Vertin (“Plaintiff”) has filed a pro se civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with the filing fee for this action. In his complaint,
Plaintiff challenges his state criminal proceedings, claiming that he was not provided a
proper mental competency hearing and that he was prosecuted, convicted, and sent to
prison while mentally incompetent. He names a state court judge as the sole defendant
in this action and sues him in his official capacity, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
II.

Legal Standards
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), the Court is required to

sua sponte dismiss a complaint seeking redress against government entities, officers, and
employees which it finds to be frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in
fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989).
A pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972). Nonetheless, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a
complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief,” as well as “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (3).
The purpose of this rule is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(citation omitted). While this notice pleading standard does not require detailed factual
allegations, it does require more than the bare assertion of legal principles or conclusions.
Id. Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me
accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A pleading that offers ‘labels
and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked
assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
557).
To state a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1)
he or she was deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the federal Constitution
or laws of the United States; and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person acting under
color of state law. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978); Harris v. Circleville,
583 F.3d 356, 364 (6th Cir. 2009).
III.

Discussion
Plaintiff's complaint concerns his state criminal proceedings. It is thus subject to

summary dismissal because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under
2

42 U.S.C. § 1983. A claim under § 1983 is an appropriate remedy for a state prisoner
challenging a condition of his imprisonment, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499
(1973), not the validity of continued confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
486-87 (1994) (holding that a state prisoner does not state a cognizable civil rights claim
challenging his imprisonment if a ruling on his claim would necessarily render his continuing
confinement invalid, until and unless the reason for his continued confinement has been
reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal, or has been called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). This holds true regardless of the relief sought by the
plaintiff. Id. at 487-89.
Heck and other Supreme Court cases, when “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 (2005). The underlying basis for the holding in Heck is that “civil tort
actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal
judgments.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. If Plaintiff were to prevail on his claims concerning the
validity of his criminal proceedings, his conviction(s) and continued confinement would be
called into question. Consequently, his claims are barred by Heck and must be dismissed.
IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in his complaint. Accordingly,
3

the Court DISMISSES his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The Court further concludes that an appeal from this decision cannot be taken in
good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445
(1962).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Gershwin A Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 4, 2014

4