Hudson v. State of Mississippi et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL with prejudice for failure to state a claim. This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A separate final judgment shall issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 2/5/2014. (JS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
DETRINE HUDSON, # 09758-043
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13cv1079-CWR-FKB
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, MISSISSIPPI
DRUG TASK FORCE, UNITED STATES,
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, UNITED
STATES CONGRESS, ERIC HOLDER, and
BARACK OBAMA
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Pro se Plaintiff
Detrine Hudson is incarcerated with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and he brings this action for
damages challenging his drug conviction. The Court has considered and liberally construed the
pleadings. As set forth below, this case is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hudson pled
guilty to possession of crack with intent to distribute. United States v. Hudson, No. 4:09cr18-DPJLRA (S.D. Miss. Dec. 29, 2009). On July 14, 2010, he was sentenced to serve seventy-five months
in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, followed by five years of supervised release. Hudson, No.
4:09cr18-DPJ-LRA (S.D. Miss. July 14, 2010).
On November 7, 2013, Hudson filed the instant action challenging his drug conviction. He
contends that (1) the indictment was based on false information, (2) the State and federal Defendants
conspired to bring the wrongful charge against him, (3) the conduct for which he was convicted was
not a crime, and (4) the federal government had no right to criminalize that conduct. He also claims
that he was denied (5) a speedy and public trial, (6) a state of Mississippi jury, (7) notice of the
charge, (8) effective assistance of counsel, and (9) his plea was involuntary. He seeks compensatory
and punitive damages under federal and state law.
DISCUSSION
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, applies to prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis
in this Court. One of the provisions reads, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The statute “accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a
claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil
of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly
baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). “[I]n an action proceeding under [28
U.S.C. § 1915, a federal court] may consider, sua sponte, affirmative defenses that are apparent from
the record even where they have not been addressed or raised.” Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th
Cir. 1990). “Significantly, the court is authorized to test the proceeding for frivolousness or
maliciousness even before service of process or before the filing of the answer.” Id. The Court has
permitted Hudson to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. His Complaint is subject to sua
sponte dismissal under § 1915.
A civil action that challenges the fact or duration of a conviction or sentence “is barred
(absent prior invalidation) . . . if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity
of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005). This rule applies
2
to a federal, as well as a state, conviction. Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 27 (5th Cir. 1994). In
such a case, a plaintiff “must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct
appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a . . . tribunal authorized to make such a
determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Where success on the claim “will not necessarily imply
the invalidity of confinement or shorten its duration,” then the action may proceed. Wilkinson, 544
U.S. at 82.
Hudson claims the charge was false and it was not a crime. He also maintains that he was
convicted without jurisdiction, a speedy and public trial, a jury, notice, effective assistance of
counsel, and based on an involuntary plea. Success on these claims would necessarily invalidate his
federal court drug conviction. These claims may only proceed if he proves the conviction has
already been invalidated. He failed to respond to the Court’s inquiries regarding whether his
conviction still stands. The Court takes judicial notice, however, that Hudson’s conviction in cause
number 4:09cr18 has not been invalidated.
Because the conviction has not yet been invalidated, Hudson is precluded by Heck from
challenging it in this civil action. This case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim,
until such time as he successfully has the federal conviction invalidated, via appeal, post conviction
relief, habeas, or otherwise. Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996). This
dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g). Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 102 (5th Cir. 1996).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case should be and is hereby
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim, until such time as pro se Plaintiff
Detrine Hudson successfully has his federal conviction invalidated, via appeal, post conviction relief,
3
habeas, or otherwise. This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A separate final
judgment shall issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 5th day of February, 2014.
s/Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES 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?