Nauman v. State of Montana
Filing
9
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 in full. Nauman's Complaint 2 is DISMISSED. Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 10/23/2012. Mailed to Nauman. (TAG, )
FILED
OCT 23 2012
Clerk. u.s District Court
District Of Montana
Missoula
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION
BRIAN NAUMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Cause No. CV 12-000063-H-DLC
ORDER
---------------------)
Plaintiff Brian Nauman has filed a proposed Complaint seeking damages
and a declaratory judgment that Montana Code Annotated § 45-5-502 violates
state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on age. United States
Magistrate Judge Keith Strong screened Nauman's complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. He entered Findings and Recommendations on August 1,2012,
recommending that the Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim and
because it is frivolous. Nauman timely filed objections and is therefore entitled to
de novo review ofthe specified findings and recommendations to which he
objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Nauman insists that Judge Strong misconstrued his Complaint. However,
Judge Strong's determination that the Complaint is completely barred by the Heck
doctrine is correct.
[I]n 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.
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). "[T]he 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." Id.
Nauman was convicted under Montana Code Annotated § 45-5-502. The
conviction has not been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or called into question by
the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Here, Nauman seeks damages for various
harms that he alleges he has suffered due to the allegedly discriminatory nature of
§ 45-5-502. As Nauman himself admits, his claim implies that his conviction is
invalid, even if that is only an "incidental byproduct" (doc. 8 at 3) of his
Complaint. Therefore, Nauman's claim is barred under Heck, and his Complaint
2
must be dismissed.
There being no clear error in Judge Strong's remaining findings and
recommendations, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendations (doc. 6) are ADOPTED
in full.
2. Nauman's Complaint (doc. 2) is DISMISSED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and enter judgment
pursuant to Rule 58 ofthe Federal Rules of Procedure.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to have the docket reflect pursuant to Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A) that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good
faith. The record makes plain the instant Complaint is frivolous as it lacks
arguable substance in law or fact.
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to have the docket reflect that this
dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Nauman failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted and his claims are frivolous.
Dated this
Z,3('.J,.daY of October 2012.
Dana L. Christensen, District Judge
United States District Court
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?