Taylor v. Weisenburger et al
Filing
4
Memorandum Opinion and Order: the plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. I further certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 12/27/2017. (S,AL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Larry Taylor,
Case No. 3:17-cv-462
Plaintiff
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Judge Eric Weisenburger, et al.,
Defendants
Background
Pro se plaintiff Larry Taylor, a state prisoner incarcerated in the Marion Correctional
Institution, has filed this in forma pauperis action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Norwalk Municipal
Court Judge Eric Weisenburger, the Norwalk Law Director and Court Clerk of Courts, as well as
Common Pleas Judges James Conway, Clerk of Courts Susan Kagel, and Prosecutor Russell Leffler.
(Doc. No. 1-1 at 3.)
His complaint does not set forth allegations against each of the defendants that are
intelligible to the court, but it appears he contends the defendants violated his constitutional right of
access to the courts, for which he seeks some type of relief under § 1983, in connection with
criminal proceedings against him that “started in . . .1995.” (See Doc. No. 1. at 3.) Judging by the
defendants he names, it appears he is referring to his criminal conviction in the Huron County Court
of Common Pleas, in which he pled no contest to and was found guilty of a charge of burglary. See
State v. Taylor, No. H-95-062, 1996 WL 532331, at *1 (Ohio Ct. App. Sept. 20, 1996). He was also
tried and convicted in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas in 1995 on charges of kidnapping,
1
rape, felonious sexual penetration, and felonious assault. See State v. Taylor, No. E-95-066, 1996 WL
660669, at *1 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 15, 1996).
Analysis
When a plaintiff is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, a court is required to
construe his complaint indulgently and hold it to a less stringent standard than a formal pleading
drafted by a lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708,
715 (6th Cir. 1999). Nonetheless, even pro se plaintiffs must satisfy basic pleading requirements, and
courts are not required to conjure allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579,
580 (6th Cir. 2001).
Federal district courts are expressly required, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, to
screen all in forma pauperis actions, and any action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity, 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 relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). In order to avoid a dismissal for
failure to state a claim, a complaint must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.
The plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A because
it fails to state any plausible claim under § 1983 on which relief may be granted.
First, the plaintiff purports to assert a civil rights claim or claims that would call into
question the validity of one or more of his state criminal convictions. Under the Supreme Court’s
decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a prisoner may not raise claims in a civil rights
action if a judgment on the merits of those claims would affect the validity of a criminal conviction
unless and until the conviction 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
2
habeas corpus. Until such time, a cause of action under § 1983 is not cognizable. Id. at 486-87. See
also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997). This holding in Heck applies whether a plaintiff
seeks monetary, injunctive, or declaratory relief. Wilson v. Kinkela, No. 97-4035, 1998 WL 246401, at
*1 (6th Cir. May 5, 1998). The plaintiff does not set forth allegations indicating that any of his state
convictions have been invalidated or set aside in any of the ways articulated in Heck. Accordingly,
he has not alleged a cognizable claim under § 1983.
Second, the plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth facts suggesting that any defendant
violated his constitutional right of access to the courts. No such claim exists unless a plaintiff
alleges that defendants prevented him from filing a non-frivolous legal claim challenging his
conviction. Clark v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 113 F. App'x 65, 68 (6th Cir. 2004). The plaintiff has not
alleged discernible facts plausibly suggesting any of defendant engaged in conduct that actually
hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim challenging any of his convictions.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e) and 1915A. I further certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this
decision could not be taken in good faith.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
3
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?