Baskin v. Maples et al
Filing
23
Memorandum Opinion and Order re 1 Complaint. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). A separate judgment will be entered. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 10/19/12 (dfk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
JOSEPH DEWAYNE BASKIN
PLAINTIFF
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12cv89-FKB
WILLIAM WAPLES and J. PULLUM
DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
This is an action filed by a state inmate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court
has held a Spears hearing, and the parties have consented to jurisdiction by the
undersigned. Having considered the allegations of the complaint and Plaintiff’s testimony
at the hearing, the Court concludes that the action should be dismissed as frivolous.
On October 25, 2011, Baskin and his wife were arrested and charged with
aggravated assault following a shooting incident at a Jackson hotel. Baskin has now
been indicted on the charge. Defendants are police officers who were involved in the
investigation of the incident. Baskin claims that Officer Waples testified falsely at his
preliminary hearing in that Waples stated that he was unsure whether any gunpowder
residue tests had been performed on Baskin. According to Baskin, this testimony was
false because Waples had directed the tests be performed and had overseen the
collection of the samples. Baskin’s complaint concerning Officer Pullum is that Pullum
failed at the preliminary hearing to provide the results of the gunpowder residue tests and
to produce the weapon used in the shooting.
Plaintiff’s claims are problematic for a number of reasons. To the extent that he is
claiming that the criminal proceedings against him are unconstitutional, this challenge may
be made in federal court, if at all, only pursuant to a habeas petition after the conclusion of
the state court proceedings. Furthermore, Baskin has failed to establish that Waples
gave any testimony that could be characterized as “false.” The documents submitted by
Defendants at the hearing indicate that although gun residue samples may have been
taken from Baskin, those samples were apparently never analyzed by the state crime lab.
Thus, Waples’ testimony, as described by Baskin, could fairly be interpreted to mean that
Waples was unsure whether the samples had been analyzed. But whether or not there is
any factual basis for Baskin’s allegations against Waples and Pullum is of little relevance,
as these allegations fail to raise any constitutional issue.1 Finally, assuming for the sake
of argument that Baskin has stated a claim against Defendants, he has nevertheless
failed to allege that Defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable such as to
overcome their defense of qualified immunity.
For these reasons, the complaint is hereby dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 19th day of October, 2012.
/s/ F. Keith Ball
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1
Baskin has not indicated that he is attempting to state a claim for malicious
prosecution. In any event, there is “no . . . freestanding constitutional right to be free from
malicious prosecution.” Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 945 (5th Cir. 2003).
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?