Friday v. Bleven
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 7 Judgment. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 8/24/12. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
WARREN D. FRIDAY, # 43982
vs.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:12cv162-MPM-SAA
NATHEN BLEVEN
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Plaintiff,
an imate currently in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, filed this pro se
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining that his probation was wrongfully revoked.
After carefully considering the pro se complaint and exhibits filed by Plaintiff, and giving the
complaint liberal construction as required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the Court
concludes that the instant complaint should be dismissed, for the reasons that follow.
Relevant Facts
Plaintiff was on post-release supervision after having been found guilty of the crime of
taking of a motor vehicle when he was subsequently charged with and convicted of aggravated
assault. As a result, his post-release supervision was revoked on November 20, 2009, and he was
ordered to serve a term of five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections,
with the sentence to run consecutively with the other sentences he was serving at the time.1
Plaintiff filed suit under § 1983 claiming that his revocation proceedings occurred without
advance knowledge to him, that his attorney was ineffective, that it was not proved that he
1
Plaintiff had been convicted of two separate offenses, one of which was the aggravated
assault charge, at the time of his revocation hearing. (See doc. entry no. 5-1).
1
violated the conditions of his supervised release, and that the mind-altering drugs he was taking
at the time of the hearing should have required the judge to send him to the hospital instead of
jail. He seeks punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000 for the alleged wrongful
revocation.
Law and Discussion
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner who has brought suit under § 1983, the Court must first
consider whether judgment in his favor would imply the invalidity of his revocation proceedings.
See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). In Heck, the Suprme Court held that “in order
to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm
caused by actions whose lawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983
plaintiff must prove that 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, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. Since revocation proceedings call into question the validity of his
post-release revocation, Plaintiff must meet Heck’s requirements of demonstrating that his
conviction or sentence has been invalidated. See, e.g., Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th
Cir. 1995) (applying Heck to claim that, if resolved in plaintiff’s favor, would imply invalidity of
the revocation of plaintiff’s probation and parole).
Plaintiff is currently in custody and has not demonstrated that the sentence imposed upon
him as a result of his revocation hearing has been invalidated in State or federal court.2
2
Plaintiff has filed a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his
revocation. The matter is pending before the Court in Cause No. 1:12cv85-SA-JMV.
2
Therefore, he fails to state a cause of action under § 1983 for a claim that his post-release
supervision was wrongfully revoked. See McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d
158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that if plaintiff does not allege “that the sentence imposed as a
result of the revocation proceedings has been invalidated by a state or federal court . . . [his]
complaint does not state a § 1983 cause of action”).
It is, therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). This dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g). All pending motions are
DISMISSED. A final judgment in accordance with this opinion and order will be entered today.
THIS the 24th day of August, 2012.
Michael P. Mills
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
3
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?