Smallwood v. United States of America

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action under section 1915A. Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Dan A. Polster(C,KA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
ROBERT SMALLWOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:14 CV 115
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On January 17, 2014, plaintiff pro se Robert Smallwood, an inmate at Federal
Correctional Institution at Victorsville, filed this civil rights action against the United States of
America. The complaint challenges plaintiff’s conviction in this court - for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance1 - on the ground that the court lacked
jurisdiction over his prosecution. For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
A district court is expressly required to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner
seeking relief from a governmental officer or entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if the
court concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if
the plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§1915A; Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167 , at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000).
Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits.

1 See U.S. v. Smallwood, N.D. Ohio Case No. 1:05 CR 327.

Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). A complaint must contain
either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements of some viable legal
theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements. See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy
Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). District courts are not required to conjure up
questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence
fragments. Beaudette, 775 F.2d at 1278. To do so would "require ...[the courts] to explore
exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, ... [and] would...transform the district court
from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest
arguments and most successful strategies for a party." Id.
Even liberally construed, the complaint does not contain allegations reasonably
suggesting plaintiff might have a valid federal claim. See, Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,,
76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996)(court not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted
legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief). The Supreme
Court has held that, when a prisoner challenges "the very fact or duration of his physical
imprisonment, ... his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 501 (1973). Further, absent allegations that criminal proceedings terminated in
plaintiff's favor or that a conviction stemming from the asserted violation of his rights was
reversed, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into
question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, he may not recover damages for
his claim. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915A. Further, the court certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Dan Aaron Polster 3/12/14
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2