Catron v. DeWine

Filing 2

Memorandum of Opinion and Order. 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 Christopher A. Boyko on 10/27/2016. (H,CM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CARVIN LAMAR CATRON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE DEWINE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16 CV 2229
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On September 6, 2016, plaintiff pro se Carvin Lamar Catron, an inmate at the Mansfield
Correctional Institution, filed this civil rights action against Ohio Attorney General Mike
DeWine. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain intelligible claims for relief, but he appears to
assert that his convictions in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas were invalid because they were
based on fraud and conspiracy. 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.
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. 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/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: October 27, 2016

-2-