Miller v. County of Choctaw et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 4/16/15. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
JAMIE L. MILLER
PLAINTIFF
V.
NO.: 1:15CV42-SA-SAA
COUNTY OF CHOCTAW, et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. Plaintiff, inmate no. 124687, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants unlawfully
seized his personal property and ordered him to pay illegal court costs. Having fully considered
Plaintiff’s allegations and the applicable law, the Court finds that the instant complaint should be
dismissed.
Screening Standards
Because Plaintiff has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, his
complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
See 28 § U.S.C. 1915(e)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (subjecting prisoner complaint to
preliminary screening regardless of in forma pauperis status). Pursuant to the PLRA, the Court
is obligated to evaluate the complaint and dismiss it if it is “frivolous or malicious,” if it “fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or if it “seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b).
Discussion
In this action, Plaintiff seeks relief that is not currently available to him. A prisoner
cannot use § 1983 to obtain money damages where his success in the suit would imply the
unlawfulness of his conviction or sentence, unless that conviction or sentence has already been
invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (“[W]hen a state prisoner seeks
damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the
plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the
complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence
has already been invalidated.”). Plaintiff complains that Defendants seized his personal property
and ordered him to pay illegal fees to the Circuit Court of Choctaw County, Mississippi.
Documents attached to Plaintiff’s complaint demonstrate, however, that Plaintiff was notified of
the seizure of his property following his arrest for possession of cocaine as a subsequent
offender. See ECF No. 1, p.6.1 These documents also demonstrate that Plaintiff was ordered to
pay court costs in Choctaw County Circuit Court Criminal Cause No. 2014-021-CR, following
his conviction for possession of cocaine. See id. at pp. 7-8.
The actions Plaintiff complains of arise out of his arrest and conviction for a crime.
Plaintiff has not suggested, much less demonstrated, that his conviction has been overturned, and
success in the instant action would necessarily imply the invalidity of the proceedings against
him in Choctaw County, Mississippi. Therefore, Plaintiff does not have a cause of action in §
1983 related to his criminal conviction in Choctaw County until that conviction or sentence has
1
Mississippi authorizes the seizure and forfeiture of personal property seized in
conjunction with violations of the State’s controlled substances laws. See Miss. Code Ann. 4129-153.
2
been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 489-90.
Accordingly, the instant complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous to
its being asserted again until the Heck conditions are met. See DeLeon v. City of Corpus Christi,
488 F.3d 649, 657 (5th Cir.2007) (quoting Johnson v. McEleveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th
Cir.1996)).
SO ORDERED, this the 16th day of April, 2015.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?