Bryant v. St. Louis Correctional Facility Warden et al

Filing 7

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERENCE STEVEN BRYANT,
Plaintiff,

Case Number: 2:17-cv-11950
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

v.
ST. LOUIS CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY WARDEN, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Terence Steven Bryant is presently confined at the Central
Michigan Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan. Plaintiff has filed a
pro se complaint challenging his confinement. Plaintiff is proceeding
without prepayment of the filing fee in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1). The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),1 because Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck v.

1

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) provides, in pertinent part:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may
have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that –
...
(B) the action or appeal –
...
(ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted . . .

-1-

Humprhey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
I.

Standard
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) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). The notice pleading
standard requires more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions or “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. at 1949 (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
-2-

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). Discussion
Plaintiff’s complaint concerns his 2000 convictions for kidnapping and
assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder for which he is
serving terms of four to twenty years’ imprisonment and eighteen to thirty
years’ imprisonment. Plaintiff seeks immediate release from incarceration
on the grounds that the evidence does not support his kidnapping
conviction and that his mental illness explains the conduct underlying his
convictions.
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 (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. Id. at
486-87. Plaintiff seeks release from continued custody. This claim is not
-3-

properly filed under § 1983.
II.

Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED.
The Court finds an appeal in this case would be frivolous and not

taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States,
369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Therefore, Plaintiff is not certified to pursue an
appeal from this judgment in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Nevertheless, should Plaintiff decide to file a notice of appeal, he may seek
leave from the Court of Appeals to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(5).
Dated: August 22, 2017
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
August 22, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
on Terence Bryant #316676, Central Michigan Correctional
Facility, 320 N. Hubbard, St. Louis, MI 48880.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-4-