Johnson v. Bates et al

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). This 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 Jack Zouhary on 8/27/2014. (D,L)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Eric M. Johnson,

Case No. 3:14 CV 481
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

-vsJUDGE JACK ZOUHARY
James D. Bates, et al.,
Defendants.

Pro se Plaintiff Eric Johnson filed this in forma pauperis action against certain state judicial
and law enforcement officials, alleging Defendants deprived him of his federal constitutional rights
while acting under color of state law.
In March 2013, Plaintiff was indicted in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. See State
v. Johnson, No. G-4801cr201301449. Plaintiff subsequently pled no contest to charges that he
trafficked in cocaine and possessed a weapon while under disability. In August 2013, Plaintiff was
sentenced to 14 months of imprisonment on the drug trafficking count, and 24 months of
imprisonment on the weapons count. In October 2013, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in state court.
Arguing he was imprisoned “via Fraud, via Malice & Willful, violations of the [his] U.S. Republic
Constitutional rights” (Doc. 1 at 1), Plaintiff seeks $30 million in damages.
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam), this Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or

fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or
fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Id. A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it
lacks “plausibility in th[e] complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). See
also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). This Court construes the Complaint in the light
most favorable to Plaintiff. See Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.
1998).
Plaintiff cannot challenge his conviction or sentence in a Section 1983 action; habeas corpus
is his sole remedy. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Plaintiff may only bring a
civil rights action that questions the validity of his conviction or sentence if his conviction or sentence
has been set aside by a federal or state court. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994).
Moreover, the Complaint’s allegations, which claim that British citizens “own” all federal and state
laws, are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). This 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/ Jack Zouhary
JACK ZOUHARY
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
August 27, 2014

2