Appenzeller v. Miller et al
Filing
14
Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. The Court further 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 6/27/2018. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RUSSELL E. APPENZELLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHELLE MILLER et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1: 18 CV 590
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
Background
Pro se Plaintiff Russell E. Appenzeller is a state prisoner in the custody of the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) incarcerated in the Belmont
Correctional Institution (BCI) in St. Clairsville, Ohio. He has filed an In Forma Pauperis
Complaint in this action against BCI and various ODRC and BCI officials and employees,
contending he is wrongfully incarcerated on 2006 convictions imposed on him in Lake
County, Ohio. (Doc. No. 6.) Although the Website for the ODRC indicates the Plaintiff was
convicted of Six Counts of Burglary, Two Counts of Attempted Burglary and Two Counts of
Theft in Lake County, the Plaintiff contends in his Complaint that there was never any arrest,
indictment or prosecution by the State of Ohio against him in Lake County and he seeks to be
immediately released from prison and damages against the Defendants for holding him on
Lake County convictions. (See Doc. No. 6 at 7, 8, 10.)
Standard or Review
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982);
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), Federal District Courts are required under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A to screen all in forma pauperis actions and actions in which
prisoners seek redress from governmental entities, officials and employees, and to dismiss
before service any such action that the Court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). In order to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, a plaintiff’s complaint must set forth “sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at
471 (holding that the dismissal standards articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009),
and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), govern dismissals for failure to
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A).
Analysis
The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s Complaint must be summarily dismissed pursuant
-2-
to §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
First, to the extent the Plaintiff is seeking immediate release from prison, he is
precluded from seeking such relief through a civil rights complaint under the Supreme Court’s
decision in Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). The Supreme Court held in Preiser:
“when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment,
and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate or speedier release
from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at 500. A
prisoner may not use a civil rights action as an alternative to a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus to challenge the legality of his confinement. Id. at 489-490.
Second, to the extent the Plaintiff seeks money damages arising from his allegedly
unlawful imprisonment, his action is barred the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Heck held that a plaintiff may not pursue a damages claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of an allegedly unlawful conviction or sentence unless and
until the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, 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. (Id. at 486-87.) Until such time, a federal cause of action is not
cognizable. Nothing in the Plaintiff’s Complaint suggests that the Lake County criminal
convictions of which he complains have been called into question, or invalidated in any of the
ways articulated in Heck. In fact, his Lake County convictions and the twenty-eight sentence
imposed on him by the Lake Country trial court, have been upheld. See, e.g., State v.
Appenzeller, 2009 -Ohio- 6384, ¶ 1, 2009 WL 4547768 (Ohio App. 11 Dist., 2009);
State v. Appenzeller, 2008 -Ohio- 7005, ¶ 124, 2008 WL 5451425, (Ohio App. 11 Dist., 2008)
-3-
(upholding Lake County convictions and sentence); Appenzeller v. Miller, No. 1: 10 CV 13,
2011 WL 1256697, at *5 (N.D. Ohio March 13, 2011) (dismissing Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus). Accordingly, the Plaintiff has stated no cognizable damages claim arising
from any alleged unlawful conviction or sentence imposed on him in Lake County.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. The Court further 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: June 27, 2018
-4-
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?