WEST v. MATTHEWS
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 1/17/2017. (seb)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil Action No. 16-5427 (CCC)
KEVN P. MATTHEWS,
Pro se Plaintiff Michael West brings this civil rights action in forma pauperis, alleging
violations of his constitutional rights. At this time, the Court must review the Complaint to
determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 2$ U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). It appearing:
1. All of Plaintiffs claims arise from an arrest and criminal prosecution against Plaintiff in
2010 that ultimately resulted in a conviction. (See ECF No. 1 at 5-6.) Indeed, Plaintiff makes
substantially the same claims in a federal habeas petition that is also before this Court. See West
v. United States, No. 13-5339 (D.N.J. filed Aug. 29, 2013); (see also ECF No. 1 at 5 (referencing
§ 2255 petition)). Plaintiff alleges that he was falsely arrested, his house illegally
searched, and that he was falsely prosecuted. (ECF No. 1 at 5-6.)
2. To the extent some of Plaintiffs claims implicate his conviction or sentence, those claims
are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As the Supreme Court explained:
[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. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or
sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.
Id. at 486-87. In Wilkinson v. Dotson, the Supreme Court further clarified its Heck holding, finding
that “a state prisoner’s
§ 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no matter the relief
sought (damages or equitable relief’), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct
leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)—tf success in that action would necessarily
demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” 544 U.S. 74, 8 1-82 (2005). This case
law similarly applies to civil rights claims against federal officers under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Kaplan v. Miller, 653
F. App’x 87, 89-90 & n.l (3d Cir. 2016).
3. In order to assert any claims that would call into question the validity of his conviction or
sentence, Plaintiff must establish that his conviction has been reversed, expunged, or declared
invalid, which Plaintiff does not and cannot establish—indeed, on the same day as the date of this
Memorandum Opinion, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs
§ 2255 petition without prejudice, and in
so doing, did not find the conviction or sentence to be invalid. As such, any such claims are barred
by Heck, and therefore are dismissed without prejudice.
4. To the extent Plaintiff has remaining claims that do not implicate Plaintiffs conviction or
sentence, those claims are time-barred. Under New Jersey law, an action for an injury caused by
a wrongful act, neglect, or default must be commenced within two years of accrual of the cause of
§ 2A:14-2; Estate ofLagano v. Bergen Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 769 F.3d 850,
859-60 (3d Cir. 2014). Federal courts look to state law to determine the limitations period for
1983 actions. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387-88 (2007); Lagano, 769 F.3d at 859-60. Civil
rights or constitutional tort claims are best characterized as personal injury actions and are
governed by the applicable state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Lagano, 769
F.3d at 859-60. Accordingly, New Jersey’s two-year limitations period on personal injury actions
governs Plaintiff’s claims. Id.
5. Here, Plaintiffs claims all arise out of events that occurred in 2010, more than six years
ago. To the extent some of his claims do not implicate his conviction or sentence, those claims
accrued at the time the alleged wrongful acts occurred. Plaintiff would have had knowledge of the
alleged wrongful acts the moment they transpired. Even if Plaintiff makes the argument that his
injury-in-fact did not occur until his conviction, the Court entered judgment against Plaintiff on
february 22, 2013, more than three years ago. See United States v. West, No. 12-cr-332, ECF No.
33 (D.N.J. judgment entered Feb. 22, 2013). Accordingly, the Court finds that any of Plaintiffs
claims that do not implicate his conviction or sentence are time-barred, and are therefore dismissed
6. Alsobefore the Court is Plaintiffs motion to amend and to transfer, ECF No. 5. The Court
has reviewed the proposed amendments, and they do not cure the defects identified herein.
Moreover, as the Court is dismissing the Complaint, the motion to transfer is dismissed as moot.
Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J.
7, 2_ t7
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?