Wilson et al v. Martin et al

Filing 8

OPINION and ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AND CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL COULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (CMul)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RUFUS DEON WILSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-14197
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

MICHAEL C. MARTIN, 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 prisoners Rufus Deon Wilson
and John Robert Davis=s pro se civil rights complaint.
Plaintiffs are incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary Hazelton.

Both

plaintiffs, after a jury trial in this Court, were convicted of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1117, conspiracy to
murder an employee of the United States; 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 846, conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute controlled substances; and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c), possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting.

Plaintiff Davis was also

convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), possession of a firearm as a felon; and 21 U.S.C. §§ 41(a), 846,
attempt to distribute a controlled substance. Plaintiff Wilson was also convicted of 18 U.S.C. §§
922(g), 924(e), possession of a firearm as a felon; and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), possession with intent to
distribute controlled substances. The Court sentenced Davis to 300 months of imprisonment and
Wilson to mandatory life imprisonment. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal.
See United States v. Wilson, Nos. 14-2498, 14-2528 (6th Cir. June 24, 2016).

The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs’ convictions resulted from “a fictitious stash
house robbery that was created and orchestrated by undercover (ATF) agent.” Compl. p. 3.
Plaintiffs claim that during the investigation and prosecution, defendants violated their Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, engaged in a conspiracy, committed abuse of
process, conducted a malicious prosecution, and fabricated evidence.

Id.

Plaintiffs seek

“exoneration” and damages. Id. at 4.
Plaintiffs have 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 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), 1915A; Flanory v. Bonn, 604 F.3d 249, 252 (6th Cir.
2010); 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, Sr., 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
The complaint alleges that defendants, all actors in the criminal investigation and
prosecution that led to plaintiffs’ imprisonment, committed acts that invalidate the convictions.
Plaintiffs’ claims are therefore barred by the favorable-termination requirement set forth in Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Under Heck, a state prisoner may not file a § 1983 suit 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. Heck, 512 U.S. at
486–87; Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2005) (“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is
barred (absent prior invalidation)—no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no
2

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.”).
This is 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 challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments.” Id. at 486. If plaintiffs
were to prevail on their claims concerning the validity of their criminal proceedings, their
convictions and continued confinement would be called into question. Consequently, such
claims are barred by Heck and 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 reassert claims if they obtain a reversal
or expungement of convictions).
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is summarily 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).

s/ Bernard A. Friedman___
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 10, 2017
Detroit, Michigan
3