Clayborne v. Parker et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Complaint 1 is dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBERT EARL CLAYBORNE JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT PARKER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3145

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter on August 12, 2013. (Filing No. 1.)
Plaintiff has previously been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No.
7.) The court now conducts an initial review of the Complaint to determine whether
summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed his Complaint against the Lancaster County Department of
Corrections, CCS Correct Care Solutions, and eight individuals. (Filing No. 1.)
Plaintiff is a prisoner currently confined at the Tecumseh State Correctional
Institution in Tecumseh, Nebraska. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 1-2.)
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is currently serving a prison term of
15-20 years for second-degree domestic assault. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 5.) Plaintiff
asserts that he was wrongfully convicted because he was incompetent to stand trial.
(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 6, 13.) Plaintiff seeks to be released from prison and placed in
a medical facility to be evaluated. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 14.)

II.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

The court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine
whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must
dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious claim,
that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A pro se plaintiff must set forth enough factual allegations to “nudge[] their
claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,” or “their complaint must be
dismissed” for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 1950 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.”). Regardless of whether a plaintiff is represented
or is appearing pro se, the plaintiff’s complaint must allege specific facts sufficient
to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
However, a pro se plaintiff’s allegations must be construed liberally. Burke v. North
Dakota Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-44 (8th Cir. 2002) (citations
omitted).
III.

DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS

Claims relating to the validity of an individual’s incarceration may not be
brought in a civil rights case, regardless of the relief sought. As set forth by the
Supreme Court in Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), and Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994), if success on the merits of a civil rights claim would necessarily
implicate the validity of a prisoner’s conviction or continued confinement, the civil
rights claim must be preceded by a favorable outcome in a habeas corpus or similar
proceeding in a state or federal forum. Absent such a favorable disposition of the
2

charges or conviction, a plaintiff may not use 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to cast doubt on the
legality of his conviction or confinement. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; see also
Smith v. Holtz, 87 F.3d 108, 113 (3d Cir. 1996) (applying Heck to a claim that would
implicate the validity of a future conviction on a pending criminal charge).
Here, Plaintiff asserts that he was wrongfully convicted of second-degree
domestic assault because he was incompetent to stand trial. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF
pp. 6, 13.) Plaintiff seeks to be released from prison and placed in a medical facility
to be evaluated. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 14.) Plaintiff’s claims, and request for relief,
necessarily implicate the validity of his conviction and current confinement. As set
forth above, the court cannot address such claims in an action brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. However, the court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without
prejudice to reassertion in a habeas corpus or similar proceeding.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (filing no. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.

2.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.

3

DATED this 11th day of October, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
4