Hankerson et al v. Wilson et al

Filing 10

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau, dated March 27, 2017 6 . 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 7 is DENIED. 3. Pl aintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis 5 is DENIED. 4. Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel 3 is DENIED. 5. This matter is SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 6/2/17. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

WILLIE C. HANKERSON,
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER
Civil File No. 17-295 (MJD/SER)

DENESE WILSON, Individual and
Official Capacity, et al.,
Defendants.
Willie C. Hankerson, pro se.

The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau, dated March
27, 2017. Plaintiff Willie C. Hankerson filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the
record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
1

Rau dated March 27, 2017. The Court has also considered Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint. In that motion, Plaintiff states that he is
not seeking to invalidate his sentence but that the Sentencing Reform Act should
not have been applied to his offense for the purpose of calculating credit. The
Court concludes that Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint suffers from the
same defects as the current Complaint with regard to the Heck doctrine. Plaintiff
has already presented his same Sentencing Reform Act credit argument to the
D.C. Circuit and to the District of Arizona, both of which have rejected his
petitions. Thus, filing the proposed Amended Complaint would be futile
because it would be subject to summary dismissal on the same grounds as the
original Complaint.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau, dated March 27, 2017 [Docket No. 6].
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [Docket No.
7] is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [Docket No. 5] is
DENIED.

2

4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Docket No. 3] is
DENIED.
5. This matter is SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Dated: June 2, 2017

s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court

3