Hill v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction et al

Filing 6

Memorandum Opinion and Order This action is dismissed under section 1915(e). 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. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 3/25/2013. (S,L)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DARNELL D. HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:13cv132

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 1]

On January 18, 2013, pro se plaintiff Darnell D. Hill, an inmate at Trumbull Correctional
Institution, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the following defendants: the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”); ODRC Director G. Mohr; the Ohio
Bureau of Sentence Computation (“OBSC”); OBSC Records Supervisor L. Bower; OBSC
employee S. Minor; the Trumbull Correctional Institution (“TCI”); TCI Warden C. LaRose; TCI
employee A. Carroll, TCI employee B. Caja; and TCI employee R. Fulton. ECF No. 1. The
complaint, which seeks monetary relief and plaintiff’s release from prison, alleges plaintiff’s
sentence has expired and therefore he is being unlawfully detained.1 ECF No. 1 at 2-3. For the
reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court is
required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which
1

The website for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction reflects
plaintiff’s prison term expires in June 2014. See
http://www.drc.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search.aspx.

(4:13cv132)
relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.2 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325, 328 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990).
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, 500 (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 either: 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). In the instant case,
Plaintiff is directly challenging the duration of his imprisonment, which to date has not been
formally invalidated in any manner.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). 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.
March 25, 2013
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

2

A claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the plaintiff and without
service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is invoking section
1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for one of the reasons set
forth in the statute. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997); Spruytte v.
Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1054 (1986); Harris v.
Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986); Brooks v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th Cir.
1985).
2