Pierce v. Sparkman et al
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 15 Judgment. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 4/18/13. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAIRIE T. PIERCE, JR.
vs.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:12cv226-SA-DAS
EMMITT SPARKMAN, et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Plaintiff Jairie
T. Pierce, Jr., an inmate currently incarcerated in the Alcorn County Regional Correctional
Facility, filed this pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he was kept in State
custody after his discharge date and seeking monetary compensation from the following
defendants: Emmitt Sparkman, the Mississippi Department of Corrections, Christopher Epps,
Robert Scott, Dorothy Johnson, Kenneth Fox, Bonito Clark, Eddie Cupit, David Petrie, Doug
Mullins, Lashonda Blanchard, Jason Kay, and Mrs. Blackwill. 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.
Background Information and Plaintiff’s Allegations
In November 2004, Plaintiff was convicted of grand larceny in Marshall County and was
sentenced a serve a term of five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections. (See Compl. Ex. A4, A5). He was conditionally paroled on or about July 20, 2009,
with a discharge from custody date of July 18, 2010. (See id., Ex. A2, A3). On or before
October 5, 2009, Plaintiff was arrested and held in the DeSoto County Jail. (See, e.g., id. Ex.
1
A6). An arrest warrant issued for Plaintiff on January 12, 2010, alleging that Plaintiff had
violated the terms of his parole agreement by failing to report to the Mississippi Department of
Corrections (“MDOC”) as directed, failing to remain in a specified area, and failing to pay his
monthly fees to MDOC as directed. (See id., Ex. A4). Because a warrant had issued for his
arrest, Plaintiff’s July 2010 discharge date was tolled, and he was not discharged from custody at
that time.
In September 2010, Plaintiff was found guilty of grand larceny and sentenced by the
Circuit Court of Tate County to a ten year term of imprisonment. A revocation warrant issued
against him on October 11, 2010, asserting that his conviction of grand larceny in Tate County
established a reasonable cause to believe that he had violated his parole agreement. (See id., Ex.
A5). Plaintiff completed his sentence for his Marshall County conviction in July 2011. (See id.,
Ex. 2). He is now serving a sentence for his Tate County conviction of grand larceny.
Plaintiff contends that much of the information in the January 2010 warrant is false, and
that the “true warrant,” did not issue until October 11, 2010. At bottom, Plaintiff is arguing that
his sentence computation records have failed to credit him with all of the time he has served,
and/or that he should have been discharged from custody for the Marshall County conviction in
July 2010, inasmuch as the January 2010 warrant was defective. Plaintiff maintains that since a
faulty warrant held him in jail and his discharge date was impermissibly tolled, he should be
given compensation to recoup the filing fees for the instant action, and an award of damages
representative of the lost wages, lost family time, and the disrespect he has had to endure as a
2
result of Defendants’ actions.1
Discussion
A plaintiff cannot recover damages in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for “allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” unless he can demonstrate “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 v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). The Heck standard has been extended to a prisoner’s
sentence computation, McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 160-61 (5th Cir.
1995), and to a plaintiff’s challenge regarding the validity of his revocation proceedings. 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 State custody and has not demonstrated that the sentence imposed
upon him as a result of his revocation proceedings, or as a result of his Tate County conviction,
have been invalidated in State or federal court. He cannot, therefore, raise a cognizable claim
that he has been denied credit for time served, nor can he raise a claim for damages as a result of
those proceedings. Because Plaintiff’s claims and requested relief are barred by Heck, the
instant complaint should be dismissed as frivolous. See Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99 ,102 (5th
1
He also requests the Court’s assistance in getting witness statements for another
lawsuit. However, the Court notes that the referenced lawsuit was dismissed on January 2, 2013.
See Civil Action No.: 2:11cv86-A-A.
3
Cir. 1996) (finding claim barred by Heck legally frivolous).
Conclusion
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 and/or as frivolous.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). This dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g). All
pending motions are DISMISSED. A final judgment in accordance with this order will be
entered today.
SO ORDERED, THIS the 18th day of April, 2013.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?