Cook v. Chief U.S. Marshal, et al.

Filing 17

Order denying Plaintiff's 16 Motion to strike and review this Court's 12 Dismissal Entry. As this Court previously noted, Plaintiff's argument cannot survive legal scrutiny. Accordingly, the motion is denied and the matter remains closed. Judge John R. Adams on 01/10/2017.(M,TL)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ALEX COOK, Plaintiff, -vsCHIEF U.S. MARSHAL, et al., Defendants. ) CASE NO. 4:16CV1529 ) ) JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS ) ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Alex Cook’s motion to strike and review this Court’s dismissal entry. Doc. 16. The motion is DENIED. On August 1, 2016, this Court dismissed Cook’s complaint without prejudice. In so doing, the Court noted that Cook was challenging the calculation of his sentence and could not do so without filing a habeas corpus petition. In response now, Cook contends that he is not seeking an alteration of his sentence. Cook claims that he is exclusively seeking monetary damages. This Court previously noted in its dismissal: “Plaintiff cannot avoid the ruling in Prieser by seeking monetary damages instead of a reduction in his sentence. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994). When a judgment in favor of a Plaintiff in a civil rights action would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, the Complaint must be dismissed unless the Plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated on direct appeal or by a federal habeas corpus action. Id.” Doc. 12 at 3. The current motion simply reiterates the same argument resolved by Heck and its progeny. As this Court previously noted, Cook’s argument cannot survive legal scrutiny. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. This matter remains closed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 10, 2017 /s/ John R. Adams_______________ JOHN R. ADAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?