Mattice-Bey v. Rendon et al
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 4/13/2017. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
JASAUN ROBERT MATTICE-BEY,
CAROLE RENDON, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:17 CV 639
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff pro se Jasaun Robert Mattice-Bey, a pre-trial detainee at the
Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, filed this civil rights action against Defendants Carole
Rendon, Michelle Baeppler, James A. Jenkins, Michael K. Stark, John R. Dysart, Judith A.
Wynn-Neel, David M. Kasulones, Stacy Griggs, FBI and the United States of America. The
Complaint makes general allegations that Plaintiff has been unfairly targeted for prosecution
despite a lack of evidence and that his attorney sought to coerce him to plead guilty.
Plaintiff seeks damages and “an injunction compelling defendants to cease and desist
with all fictitious actions.” Complaint, p.6. For the reasons stated below, this action is
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).
Even liberally construed, the Complaint does not contain allegations reasonably
suggesting Plaintiff might have a valid federal claim. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because an
adjudication of those claims would imply the invalidity of his pending criminal charges. In
general, a claim is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a judgment on the merits of those
claims would affect the validity of a conviction, unless the conviction has been set aside. See
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994).
The concerns of Heck apply pre-conviction as well as post-conviction. Shamaeizadeh v.
Cunigan, 182 F.3d 391, 398 (6th Cir. 1999); see Gorenc v. City of Westland, No. 02-2456, 2003
WL 21782610 (6th Cir. July 31, 2003)(finding plaintiff’s pre-trial challenge under §1983 to a
speeding ticket is barred by Heck because it would necessarily imply the invalidity of the traffic
citation).1 Heck precludes § 1983 claims relating to pending charges when a judgment in favor of
the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of any conviction or sentence that might result
from prosecution of the pending charges. Gorenc, No. 02-2456, 2003 WL 21782610 at * 2; Beck
v. City of Muskogee Police Dep’t, 195 F.3d 553, 557 (10th Cir. 1999). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims
are not cognizable under § 1983 unless and until the pending criminal proceedings are resolved
in his favor.
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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: April 13, 2017
See also Adams v. Morris, No. 03-5413, 2004 WL 193219 (6th Cir. Jan. 29,
2003)(holding that plaintiff’s § 1983 challenge to the effectiveness of his trial
counsel while the state criminal proceedings were still pending to be barred by
Heck); Thomas v. Pugh, No. 00-6155, 2001 WL 522437 (6th Cir. May 9,
2001)(finding a pre-trial detainee’s § 1983 claim that he was denied a speedy trial
to be barred by Heck); Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 107 F.3d 696, 700-01
(9th Cir. 1996)(applying Heck to pre-trial detainees); Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d
99, 102-03 (5th Cir. 1996).
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?