Gant v. Romanowski et al

Filing 6

OPINION and ORDER of summary dismissal. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRIAN GANT,
Case Number: 2:15-CV-11321
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

Plaintiff,
v.
ROMANOWSKI, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Brian Gant’s pro se civil rights complaint filed
under 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). Plaintiff’s claims relate to an amended
judgment of sentence entered in his criminal case. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief and
also to have the amended judgment of sentence vacated. For the reasons which follow,
the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). While this notice pleading standard
does not require “detailed” factual allegations, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, it does require
more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions or “an unadorned, the-1-

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).
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee
for this action. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), the court is required to
sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service on a defendant if it
determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Similarly, the Court
is required to dismiss a complaint seeking redress against government entities, officers,
and employees that 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(b). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable
basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
To state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he 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). A pro se civil rights
complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
Plaintiff’s complaint challenges his present incarceration. He argues that his
amended judgment of sentence was entered under “erroneous circumstances” and
-2-

should be vacated. The complaint necessarily challenges the validity of Plaintiff’s
sentence. A claim under § 1983 is an appropriate remedy for a state prisoner
challenging a condition of his imprisonment. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
499 (1973). In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), the Supreme Court
established 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, called into question by a federal
court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or otherwise
invalidated. See also Ruff v. Runyon, 258 F.3d 498, 502 (6th Cir. 2001) (Heck holding
applies equally to an action that would invalidate a federal conviction that has not been
declared invalid or otherwise impugned). Because Plaintiff has not achieved a favorable
termination of his criminal case, this complaint is barred by Heck.
Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 5, 2015
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
May 5, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on
Brian Gant #233652, Detroit Re-Entry Center,
17600 Ryan Road, Detroit, MI 48212.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-4-