Washington v. Sanchez et al
Filing
13
OPINION and ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 5 Letter- Motion to Amend, Denying Remaining Pending Motions Ecf Nos. 7-12, and Summarily Dismissing 1 Complaint. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KALVIN L. WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 21-cv-11725
v.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
RICHARD SANCHEZ, ET AL.,
Defendants.
______________
/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S LETTER-MOTION
TO AMEND (ECF NO. 5), DENYING REMAINING PENDING MOTIONS
(ECF NOS. 7-12), AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Kalvin L. Washington has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). ECF No. 1. He also filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which the Court granted. ECF Nos. 2, 4.
Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is authorized to screen the
case and dismiss it if, at any time, the Court determines that the action is:
(i) frivolous or malicious or (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Washington fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, so the
complaint will be dismissed.
1
I.
BACKGROUND
Washington is serving a twenty to thirty year sentence for a 2004 Oakland
County Circuit Court conviction for third-degree criminal sexual conduct. In his
complaint, he names as defendants: Detroit Police Officer Richard Sanchez, Hazel
Park Police Officer Suzanne Strautz, Oakland County Prosecutor Ms. Middleditch,
Oakland County Prosecutor Paul T. Walton, City of Detroit Police Department,
Hazel Park Police Department, Wayne County, Oakland County, and 45 John
Does.
Washington maintains that his current conviction from Oakland County is
unlawful because he was tried for the same crime in Wayne County Circuit Court
and acquitted. He claims that the Detroit and Hazel Park Police Departments
falsely accused him of criminal sexual conduct and worked together to retry him in
violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. He also asserts that during his unlawful
incarceration he has been sexually assaulted, beaten by staff members, and
prevented from timely filing legal pleadings.
Washington seeks immediate release, $20 million for his 20 year sentence,
$30 million for being forced to perform sexual acts against his will, and a new
semi-truck to replace the semi-truck that was impounded when he was arrested.
2
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Prison Litigation Reform Act authorizes a district court to screen a
complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis or
seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court must identify cognizable claims and
sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, 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 id.
A complaint must 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). Detailed factual allegations are not required but
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
III.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
Pending before the Court are seven motions filed by Washington. The first
is a letter-motion to file an amended cover sheet. See ECF No. 5. Washington
states that the original cover page he filed was incomplete because it omitted
multiple defendants. He seeks to amend the complaint to name the defendants
listed on an attached amended cover sheet. Because the complaint was not served
3
on the defendants and, consequently, no response has been filed, Washington may
amend his complaint without leave of court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
Tolliver v. Noble, 752 F. App’x 254, 263-64 (6th Cir. Oct. 12, 2018) (plaintiff
could file an amended complaint as a matter of right at any time before his
complaint was dismissed under Rule 15(a)(1) where the complaint had not yet
been served and where defendants had not responded to the complaint). The case
caption shall be amended to include the defendants listed on the amended cover
sheet: Wayne County Prosecutor Lori Dawson, Court Reporter Alfreda R.
Conners, Oakland County Prosecutor David Gorcyca, Oakland County Circuit
Judge Richard D. Kuhn, and Warden Connie Horton.
Washington filed two additional motions to amend seeking to add the
Oakland County Sheriff’s Department as a defendant. See ECF Nos. 10, 12.
Because Washington has previously filed a motion to amend, he may only do so by
leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Leave to amend “shall be freely given
when justice so requires.” Id. Leave to amend may be denied if the proposed
amendment would be futile. See Thiokol Corp. v. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury, 987
F.2d 376, 383 (6th Cir. 1993) (holding a court should deny a motion to amend if
the amendment would be futile). A Sheriff’s Department is not a legal entity
subject to suit under § 1983. Rhodes v. McDannel, 945 F.2d 117, 120 (6th Cir.
1991). Thus, allowing Washington to amend the complaint as requested would be
4
futile. Additionally, the second motion (ECF No. 12) is redundant of the first
(ECF No. 10) and would have been rendered moot regardless of the Court’s
determination as to the first motion. Accordingly, both motions will be denied.
The remaining motions are rendered moot by the dismissal of the complaint.
IV.
DISCUSSION
Washington claims that he has been incarcerated for 18-1/2 years as the
result of an unconstitutional conviction. He also maintains that during this
continuing period of unconstitutional incarceration he has been sexually assaulted,
beaten, and prevented from filing court papers. He seeks immediate release from
prison and monetary damages. Washington’s claims fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
First, Washington’s claims concerning the validity of his conviction are
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 authorized to make such determination,
or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.”
5
Id. at 487; 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 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.”). If successful, Washington’s claims would render his criminal
conviction invalid. Accordingly, his complaint will be dismissed without prejudice
under Heck. See Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351, 367 (6th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (a
dismissal under Heck “should generally be made without prejudice”)
Washington also alleges that he has been forced to perform sex acts on a
number of men while incarcerated, has been beaten by prison staff members, and
prevented from filing court papers. But Washington does not attribute these
factual allegations to particular defendants or allege any defendant’s personal
involvement with these assaults. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (holding that, in
order to state a claim, plaintiff must make sufficient allegations to give a defendant
fair notice of the claim); Frazier v. Michigan, 41 F. App’x 762, 764 (6th Cir. 2002)
(dismissing claims where complaint did not allege which of the named defendants
were personally involved in or responsible for each alleged violation of rights);
Griffin v. Montgomery, No. 00-3402, 200 WL 1800569, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 30,
2000) (requiring allegations of personal involvement against each defendant).
6
These claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Washington’s right to raise
them in a separate proceeding against proper defendants.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the
complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court also concludes that an appeal
from this order would be frivolous and therefore cannot be taken in good faith. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir.
1997).
The Court GRANTS Washington’s Letter-Motion to Amend (ECF No. 5).
The Court DENIES Washington’s Motion to Add Defendant (ECF No. 10)
and Motion to Amend Defendants’ Names (ECF No. 12) because amendment
would be futile and DENIES Washington’s remaining pending motions as moot.
(ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Gershwin A. Drain__________________
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
Dated: October 27, 2021
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
October 27, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Teresa McGovern
Case Manager
8
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?