Doherty v. Fraser et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (CMul)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GREGORY M. DOHERTY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:16-CV-14039
v.
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
CHRISTOPHER FRASER, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AND
CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL COULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
This matter is before the Court on its own review of Michigan prisoner Gregory
M. Doherty’s pro se civil rights complaint. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Central Michigan
Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan. The complaint was filed by Victoria A. Matievich,
plaintiff’s mother, acting under a power of attorney.
The complaint alleges that defendant Detective Christopher Fraser and unnamed
persons at the Macomb County Jail engaged in “acts [that resulted in plaintiff’s] inability to
participate in his trial with a clear and competent mind: thereby depriving him of his
constitutional right for due process and a fair trial.” Habeas Pet., p. 1. Specifically, he claims
that he was administered “powerful psychotropic medication which had severe mental side
effective just a short time before trial.” Id. Plaintiff is currently seeking post-conviction relief in
state court and $5,000,000 in damages. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee
for this action. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 requires federal district courts to
screen a prisoner’s complaint and to dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to
1
state a claim for which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A; Flanory v. Bonn, 604 F.3d 249,
252 (6th Cir. 2010). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, Sr., 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
To state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) that he was
deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the federal Constitution or laws of the
United States and (2) that this 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 alleges that defendants rendered him incompetent to stand trial in his
criminal case, thereby resulting in his unlawful imprisonment. Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by
the favorable-termination requirement articulated in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
Under the Heck doctrine, a state prisoner may not file a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages
or equitable relief challenging his conviction or sentence if a ruling on the claim would render
the conviction or sentence invalid, until and unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed
on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into
question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 486–87; Wilkinson v.
Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2005) (“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior
invalidation)Cno 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)Cif success
in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”). This
holds true regardless of the relief sought by the plaintiff. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487–89. The
underlying basis for the holding in Heck is that “civil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for
2
challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments.” Id. at 486.
If plaintiff were to prevail on his claim concerning the validity of his criminal
proceeding, his convictions and continued confinement would be called into question.
Consequently, such claims are barred by Heck and must be dismissed. This dismissal is without
prejudice. See Hodge v. City of Elyria, 126 F. App’x 222, 223 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that a
case dismissed pursuant to Heck should be dismissed without prejudice so that plaintiff may
re-assert claims if plaintiff obtains reversal or expungement of convictions).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) because the claims are barred by Heck.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this order 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 (1962).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any pending motion is denied as moot.
s/ Bernard A. Friedman_________
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 1, 2016
Detroit, Michigan
3
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?