Harris v. Bazilius et al
Filing
3
Memorandum of Opinion and Order. This action is dismissed under section 1915A. 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 10/4/2016. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WALTER LEE HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CYNTHIA BAZILIUS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:16 CV 2346
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff pro se Walter Lee Harris, an inmate at the Cuyahoga
County Jail, filed this civil rights action against Cleveland Police Detective Cynthia Bazilius,
Sheriff Clifford Pinkney, and “State Attorney” Jeffrey S. Shnatter. Plaintiff alleges in the
Complaint that he was subjected to an unlawful search and arrest, that his bond was revoked
based on unknown warrant, and that his pending retrial violates his speedy trial rights and
subjects him to double jeopardy. He asserts his current detention is therefore unlawful. For the
reasons stated below, this action is dismissed.
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).
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 4, 2016
-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?