Smith v. Office of Court Administration O.C.A. et al

Filing 4

ORDER: Plaintiff's 2 request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted for the limited purpose of this Court's dismissing the complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 7; 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of appeal. C/M. Forwarded for judgment. Ordered by Senior Judge Raymond J. Dearie on 5/9/2011. (Chee, Alvin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------)(

SHATEK SMITH,

Plaintiff,
ORDER

- against11 CV 954 (RJD) (LB)
OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION,
QUEENS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
KINGS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
INDIGENT DEFENSE PANEL, 18B COUNSEL
PANEL and JOHN and JANE DOE, Officers of
the Court,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------)(

DEARIE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Shatek Smith, currently incarcerated at Orleans Correctional Facility, brings this
action pro se for alleged violation of his civil rights. Although his complaint is unclear, 1 plaintiff
appears to challenge numerous convictions dating back to 1988 on the ground that plaintiff did
not'l'eceive [his] court papers at [his] felony indictment arraignment[s];'which allegedly caused
plaintiffto"accept pleas without knowledge of [his] e)(act charges:' (Compl.

'\I IV.A.) Plaintiff

seeks to "clean [his] rap sheet of these illegal convictions [a]nd sentences' and requests $147
million in compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. '\I V.) Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted for the limited purpose of this Courfs dismissing the complaint without
prejudice.

1 Plaintiff mailed the complaint from the Orleans Correctional Facility on February 22, 2011,just
over one month after the January 18, 2011, commencement of plaintiffs most recent sentence for
weapons possession and narcotics distribution. See Inmate Information,
http://nysdocslookup.docs.state.ny.us/GCAOOPOO/WI Q3/WINQ 130.

Discussion

"[I]n a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from [an] officer or employee ofa
governmental entity," such as the action here, a court may dismiss the complaint or any portion
of the complaint ifit "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted." 28 U.S.c. §§ 1915A(a)-(b). A court may dismiss an action filed in forma pauperis for
the same reasons. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). "Such dismissals must accord the inmate an
opportunity to amend the complaint 'unless the court can rule out any possibility, however
unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would succeed in stating a claim.'" Abbas v.
Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d
794,796 (2d Cir.1999». In applying these rules, the Court is mindful that "[a] pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court construes plaintiffs claim as one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To
the extent plaintiff seeks monetary damages on account of his prior convictions, that claim fails
because the "principle that civil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the
validity of outstanding criminal judgments applies to § 1983 damages actions that necessarily
require the plaintiff to prove the unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement." Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994). Accordingly, "a prisoner, as a prerequisite to maintaining
his § 1983 action, must establish that his conviction or sentence has been overturned or
invalidated by an administrative board[,] a state court or a federal court in a habeas proceeding."
Jenkins v. Haubert, 179 F.3d 19,25 (2d Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff has not alleged the required facts. Although the Court might have authority to
expunge an unconstitutional arrest under exceptional circumstances, see Bilick v. Dudley, 356

2

F. Supp. 945 (S.D.N.Y. 1973), plaintiff may not invoke § 1983 broadly to "clean [his] rap sheet."
(ld.

~

V.) If plaintiff wishes to challenge his most recent conviction or sentence, for example, he

may bring a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 if and when the prerequisites are met. See Jenkins,
179 F.3d at 23 ("[W]here the fact or duration of a prisoner's confinement is at issue, § 1983 is
unavailable, and only § 2254(b) with its exhaustion requirement may be employed."). Until
then, "a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
conviction or sentence," removing § 1983 from plaintiff's arsenal. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.

Conclusion
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and
1915(e)(2)(B). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this
order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the
purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brook~n,
May~,

New York
2011

s/ Judge Raymond J. Dearie

AA~J. DEARIE
u n i t e : District Judge

3