Roberts v. Sollie et al

Filing 41

ORDER granting 36 Motion to Dismiss; granting 30 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 8/3/16 (YWJ)(Copy mailed to Plaintiff at address listed on docket sheet.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

JAFRON LEMUEL ROBERTS
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14cv826-FKB

RITA JACK, Detective for the
Meridian Police Department

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [30] for Failure to
State a Claim, and Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss [36] Pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey.
Plaintiff has filed a Response [38] to the Renewed Motion to Dismiss [36], and Defendant has
filed a Rebuttal [39]. Having considered the filings, the Court finds that the Motions [30, 36]
should be granted. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in this opinion, this case is hereby
dismissed without prejudice.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Roberts originally filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 24, 2014.
[1]. Plaintiff, who is incarcerated, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. After initial consideration, the Court determined that Roberts’s complaint presented both
§ 1983 claims and habeas corpus claims. [23]. Thus, on October 26, 2015, the Court severed
Roberts’s habeas claims from his § 1983 claims and filed the habeas claims in a separate action,
Roberts v. Mitchell, et al., Civil Action No. 3:15cv769-DPJ-FKB. Id. After further
consideration, the Court dismissed Roberts’ habeas claims. [8], Civil Action No. 3:15cv769DPJ-FKB.

When Roberts originally filed this case in October 2014, he alleged that he was a statecourt pretrial detainee being held without indictment since September 2013 on charges of
kidnapping, rape, possession of stolen property, and disposal of stolen property. [1]. According
to an order entered in state court, he was indicted on September 24, 2014, on charges of
kidnapping, statutory rape, and sexual battery. [31-1] at 1. In a separate criminal case, Roberts
was indicted on charges of disposal of stolen property and possession of stolen property. Id. at
1-2.
In his complaint and subsequent filings, he alleges that Defendant Rita Jack, a detective
with the Meridian, Mississippi, Police Department, violated his constitutional rights. In its Order
[23] severing Roberts’s habeas claims from his § 1983 claims, the Court narrowed Plaintiff’s
claims to those asserting false arrest, lack of Miranda warnings and assistance of counsel, and
slander. [23] at 6. The Order [23] directed the undersigned to “determine the extent, if any, to
which these claims relate to Defendant Jack and whether they should be stayed or dismissed.”
Id. at 7.
On December 15, 2015, the Court held an omnibus hearing1 in this § 1983 case. At that
time, the parties consented to have a United States magistrate judge conduct any and all further
proceedings in the case and order the entry of final judgment, and the District Judge
subsequently entered an order of reference. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.
During the hearing, Roberts was given an opportunity to elaborate upon his claims.
Roberts testified that on October 1, 2013, Jack arrested him “to be questioned about sexual
assault.” [36-1] at 6-8. Roberts claimed that Jack falsely arrested him without probable cause

1

See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
-2-

because his car did not match the description of a car given by the victim. Id. at 13. He also
testified that Jack failed to give him Miranda warnings, even though he admitted that she read
the Miranda warnings to him. Id. at 7-8, 14. Roberts further testified that Jack failed to provide
him access to an attorney when he was initially questioned by the police regarding the charges of
rape, kidnapping, and possession and disposal of stolen property. Id. at 14-16.2 Finally, Roberts
claimed that his name was slandered when he was charged with the crimes, and the former
district attorney slandered his name during his bond hearing by calling him a “menace to
society.” Id. at 16-17. Considering Plaintiff’s testimony and the status of his state court charges,
the Court stayed the case pending Plaintiff’s trial on his charges.
Since the omnibus hearing, a jury has convicted Roberts of one count of kidnapping and
one count of statutory rape in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, Mississippi. [36-2]. On
May 5, 2016, the state court sentenced Roberts to a term of thirty-seven (37) years on the
statutory rape charge, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the kidnapping charge.3
[36-3]. The state court also gave Roberts credit for time served. Id. The status of any appeal of
the criminal conviction is unknown to the Court.
DISCUSSION
In Defendant Jack’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss, she argues that Petitioner’s recent
conviction prevents any recovery by him in this § 1983 action. The Court agrees.
In Heck v. Humphrey, the United States Supreme Court stated:
2

According to Plaintiff’s testimony, after he was stopped and arrested for sexual assault,
he consented to a search of his vehicle, and during the search of his vehicle, officers “found the
stolen property.” [36-1] at 8-9.
3

Plaintiff’s sentence on the kidnapping charge is not before the Court. The status of the
charges of possession of stolen property and disposal of stolen property is also unknown.
-3-

in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would
render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove 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.
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994)(emphasis in original).
In this case, a judgment in Roberts's favor "would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
conviction or sentence" on the charges of statutory rape and kidnapping, therefore his claims are
not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. Roberts’s § 1983 claims alleging that he was falsely
arrested and directly attacking the probable cause to arrest him on the charges of statutory rape
and kidnapping are barred by Heck. See Wells v. Bonner, 45 F.3d 90, 94-95 (5th Cir. 1995).4
Likewise, based on Heck, his § 1983 claims related to Miranda warnings may not be pursued.
Bickman v. Blair, 228 F.3d 408, 2000 WL 2056096 (5th Cir. July 17, 2000)(unpublished).
Finally, Roberts cannot pursue his claims of slander under § 1983. At the hearing, he
alleged that the fact that charges were pending against him slandered his name. Such a claim is
Heck-barred, as it relates to his prosecution on the charges and could implicitly call into question
the validity of his convictions. See Lavergne v. Kloster, 583 F. App'x 411 (5th Cir. 2014).
Moreover, his claim that an unnamed prosecutor referred to him as a “menace to society” during
a bond hearing cannot stand because absolute immunity extends to prosecutors who are

4

The same rationale applies to any claim for false arrest and lack of probable cause
related to the charges of possession of stolen property and disposal of stolen property. “The
claim for false arrest does not cast its primary focus on the validity of each individual charge;
instead, we focus on the validity of the arrest. If there was probable cause for any of the charges
made . . . then the arrest was supported by probable cause, and the claim for false arrest fails.”
Wells, 45 F.3d at 94 (emphasis in original).
-4-

performing prosecutorial acts. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Defendant Jack’s Motions to Dismiss
[30, 36] should be granted based on Heck v. Humphrey. Accordingly, this case is hereby
dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
SO ORDERED, this the 3rd day of August, 2016.

/s/ F. Keith Ball
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-5-