Martin v. Sullivan et al

Filing 17

ORDER Denying Motion for an Order or F.O.I.A. 14 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARCUS MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 2:17-cv-10815
Hon. Denise Page Hood

v.
PAUL J. SULLIVAN, ET AL,
Defendants.
________________________________/

ORDER DENYING “MOTION FOR AN ORDER OR F.O.I.A.” (Dkt. 14)
Plaintiff Marcus Martin, a state inmate incarcerated at the Charles
Egeler Reception and Guidance Center in Jackson, Michigan, filed a pro se
civil complaint. The complaint alleged that the Defendants - all actors in his
state criminal prosecution - conspired against him in order to deprive him of
his constitutional rights as to his conviction. The Court summarily dismissed
the complaint because Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the “favorable
termination” rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Order or F.O.I.A.” (Dkt. 14).
The pro se pleading states that Plaintiff did not receive timely notice of the
dismissal, that Heck does not bar review of his claims because a habeas
action would be futile, and because Plaintiff did not intend to attack his
1

sentence. The motion does not state the relief requested.
With respect to the notice of the Court’s May 31, 2017, order of
dismissal, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on July 28, 2017. At that time
Plaintiff could have, but did not, file a motion to reopen the time to file an
appeal because he did not receive proper notice of the judgment. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(6). The Sixth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal on that basis.
Martin v. Sullivan, No. 17-1897 (6th Cir. November 22, 2017). Plaintiff
advances no argument undermining the result reached by the Sixth Circuit.
Next, the fact that a habeas petition would be futile or that the complaint
did not facially challenge Plaintiff’s conviction or sentence does not alter the
conclusion that his complaint was barred by Heck. Heck requires that the
conviction be invalidated before a civil suit may be brought, and the fact that
a plaintiff no longer has a means to invalidate his conviction has no bearing.
Id., 512 U.S. at 486-87. Nor does the fact that the complaint did not directly
seek to invalidate Plaintiff’s conviction matter. Heck extends to actions
seeking any form of relief. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48
(1997) (declaratory relief); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189-90 (5th Cir.
1998) (claim for injunctive relief intertwined with request for damages); Wilson
v. Kinkela, No. 97-4035, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 9341, 1998 WL 246401, at *1

2

(6th Cir. May 5, 1998) (injunctive relief).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: February 6, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on February 6, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3