Wells v. Gibbs et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER dismissing complaint without prejudice and dismissing motions 8 and 9 as moot. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 3/12/2015. (dlh) Modified on 3/12/2015 (dlh).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
MONTRELL WELLS
PLAINTIFF
V.
NO.: 3:14CV260-SA-JMV
JIMMY GIBBS and
DAREN THOMAS
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Plaintiff
Montrell Wells, a pretrial detainee1 currently housed at the Tallahatchie County Correctional
Facility (“TCCF”), has filed a civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Tutwiler,
Mississippi, police officers Jimmy Gibbs and Daren Thomas, alleging that they unlawfully
arrested him and improperly charged him with a felony offense. 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
1
Although Plaintiff does not identify himself as a pretrial detainee, an online search of
the inmate records for the Mississippi Department of Corrections reveals that he is not currently
a convicted inmate. See http://www.mdoc.state.ms.us/InmateTest.asp (search by last and first
name) (last visited March 12, 2015).
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
Plaintiff alleges that on or about September 15, 2014, Defendants, officers with the
Tutwiler, Mississippi, police department, unlawfully arrested him for domestic assault, resisting
arrest, and disorderly conduct based on the testimony of his girlfriend, who was upset and just
wanted to get Plaintiff into trouble. Plaintiff maintains that Defendants have a personal
relationship with the alleged victim, and that they used their authority to charge him with a
felony, even though his conduct merited only a misdemeanor charge. Plaintiff asks the Court to
award him damages for his mental stress and anguish.
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the United States Supreme Court held that a
plaintiff cannot challenge his imprisonment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless he shows:
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. A claim for damages bearing that relationship
to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable
under § 1983. Thus, when 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. But if the district court
determines that the plaintiff’s action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the
invalidity of the outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action
should be allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to the suit.
Id. at 486-87 (footnotes omitted). In this case, Plaintiff has not yet been convicted. Heck does
not bar “an action which would impugn an anticipated future conviction[.]” Wallace v. Kato,
2
549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (emphasis in original). However, the Supreme Court has held:
If a plaintiff files a false-arrest claim before he has been convicted (or files any
other claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending or anticipated
criminal trial), it is within the power of the district court, in accord with common
practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a
criminal case is ended. If the plaintiff is ultimately convicted, and if the civil suit
would impugn that conviction, Heck will require dismissal; otherwise, the civil
action will proceed, absent some other bar to suit.
Id. (citations and internal citations omitted). While it does not appear that Plaintiff has been
convicted of a crime based on the charges he complains of in this case, a successful § 1983
action based on allegations of unlawful arrest would necessarily imply the invalidity of any
future conviction that might result from the charges against Plaintiff and would, therefore,
implicate Heck. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice to Plaintiff’s
ability to bring a § 1983 action upon resolution of his criminal case.2
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court ORDERS that the instant complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice, and that all pending motions be DISMISSED as moot. A
separate final judgment will enter today.
SO ORDERED this the 12th day of March, 2015.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
2
The Court acknowledges that it has the authority to stay this civil case pending the
outcome of Plaintiff’s criminal case, but it finds dismissal without prejudice a more efficient use
of judicial resources under the circumstances presented.
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?