Carter v. United States of America et al

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this case 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 John R. Adams on 4/10/15. (K,C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
ORLANDO CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:15 CV 206
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On January 30, 2015, plaintiff pro se Orlando Carter, an inmate at the Federal
Correctional Institution at Elkton, filed this civil rights action against United States Attorney
General Eric Holder and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Gormely. Plaintiff’s
complaint, seeking declaratory, injunctive and monetary, as well as his release from prison,
alleges he was improperly convicted of numerous offenses in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio. See, U.S. v. Carter, S.D. Oh. Case No. 1:08 CR 5. 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
relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490
1

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

U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996).
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, 501 (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 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).
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.
/s/ John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED:

4/10/15

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