Ryan v. Arledge et al

Filing 72

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS VEXATIOUS counting as a "strike"; all pending motions are DISMISSED as moot. CASE CLOSED. Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 11/7/17. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
BRENT EVERRETT RYAN
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 1:16CV158-MPM-JMV

MIKE ARLEDGE, SHERIFF, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS VEXATIOUS
This matter comes before the court after the plaintiff’s responses [68], [69], [70] to the court’s
order [62] that he show cause why the case should not be dismissed because he made demonstrably
false allegations and thus attempted to perpetrate a fraud upon the court. Specifically, the plaintiff
alleged that defendant Betty McElrath prevented him from ever obtaining counsel to defend him
against criminal charges and, after conviction, to prosecute a direct appeal. As set forth in the court’s
show-cause order [62], these allegations are demonstrably false for two reasons. First, the docket of
the Mississippi Supreme Court makes clear that Ryan was represented by appointed counsel from
shortly after his indictment through the prosecution of his appeal to completion. Indeed, he was
represented by appellate counsel on July 17, 2017, the time he alleged in a motion that he was
unrepresented. Second, during a substantial part of the time in question, Ryan was housed in a facility
far from Ms. McElrath; as such, she could not have hindered his ability to obtain counsel during that
time.
Mr. Ryan responded [68], [69], [70] to the court’s show-cause order; however, his responses
did not address his fabrications. In his responses, he argued that it took too long to obtain counsel and
that neither trial nor appellate counsel represented him effectively. These allegations are a far cry
from:
Ms. McElrath has refused to produce the paperwork for plaintiff to obtain counsel, and

still today Monday, July 17, 2017, the plaintiff is still unable to defend himself against
criminal charges against himself.
Doc. 43 at 6. (emphasis added). Thus, Mr. Ryan has not shown, or even argued, that the allegations at
issue were true.
The allegations in Mr. Ryan’s various responses involve issues which, if resolved in his favor,
would call into question the validity of his conviction. These issues must be resolved through a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, not an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Ryan must overturn his
conviction through other means, such as a habeas corpus petition, before seeking relief for these types
of errors in the prosecution of his criminal charges. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364,
129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
For these reasons, Mr. Ryan has not explained why the court should permit this case to proceed,
despite his demonstrably false statements. As such, the instant case is DISMISSED as malicious,
counting as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In light of this ruling, the motions currently pending
in this case are DISMISSED as moot.

SO ORDERED, this, the 8th day of November, 2017.

/s/MICHAEL P. MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI