Smallwood v. Polster
Filing
2
Memorandum Opinion and Order: 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. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 10/14/14. (LC,S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
ROBERT SMALLWOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAN AARON POLSTER, U.S. District Judge,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:14 CV 2110
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
On September 23, 2014, Plaintiff pro se Robert Smallwood, an inmate at the Victorville
Federal Correctional Complex, filed this civil rights action against United States District Judge
Dan Aaron Polster. Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that he is incarcerated as a result of
convictions in the United States District Court, but asserts the Court lacked jurisdiction to
prosecute him.
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).
Plaintiff challenges the validity of his conviction and resulting confinement. 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/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 10/14/14
-2-
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?