Brown v. Evans et al
Filing
13
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's Motion for the Correction of a Clerical Error Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) (ECF No. 4 ) is granted; Defendant Deena Calabrese's Motion to Dismiss ( ECF No. 8 ) is granted; and, Defendant Paul C. Conn's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9 ) is granted. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants. 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 8/31/2018. (JLG)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KEVIN N. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES C. EVANS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:18CV0789
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
[Resolving ECF Nos. 4, 8, and 9]
I. Background
Pro Se Plaintiff Kevin N. Brown, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint in this
action against James C. Evans, Deena R. Calabrese, and Paul C. Conn. ECF No. 1. The
Complaint (ECF No. 1) pertains to a 2001 criminal prosecution brought against him in Mahoning
County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2001 CR 00705. He was convicted by a jury of
four counts of rape, adjudicated a sexual predator, and sentenced to four life sentences. James C.
Evans, now deceased, was the judge; Deena R. Calabrese was the prosecutor; and, Paul C. Conn
served as a defense lawyer.
In his Complaint (ECF No. 1), Plaintiff characterizes his action as brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1985, which prohibits conspiracies to violate certain federal civil rights. He alleges the
“three defendants . . . conspired together to imprison [him] for life for crimes not committed or
charged by law” and “knowingly aided in [his] sentence” in violation of his rights under the
(4:18CV0789)
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments “and every other federal or state right, duty, or obligation.”
ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3. As relief, he seeks two million dollars in damages from each
defendant and for the Court “to restore all his rights as a citizen of the United States.” ECF No. 1
at PageID #: at 4. On May 29, 2018, he filed a Motion for the Correction of a Clerical Error
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) (ECF No. 4) stating that he seeks to assert conspiracy claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and (3) and not § 1985(b).1 That motion is granted.
Defendants Calabrese and Conn have both filed motions to dismiss the plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF Nos. 8 and 9. Defendant Calabrese asserts
that any claim asserted by Plaintiff under § 1985 is barred by the statute of limitations; his
conclusory allegations are insufficient to state any plausible claim against her; she is entitled to
absolute prosecutorial immunity; and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits the plaintiff from
appealing his state conviction in federal court. ECF No. 8. Defendant Conn adopts all of
Defendant Calabrese’s arguments and further asserts that Plaintiff has failed to allege a plausible
conspiracy claim under § 1985(3) because he has not alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate a
conspiracy based on race or other invidious class-based discrimination. ECF No. 9 at PageID #:
37-39. Plaintiff has filed responses to Defendants’ motions (ECF Nos. 10 and 11) disputing that
his complaint is subject to dismissal.
1
Section § 1985(2) prohibits conspiracies to obstruct justice by intimidating or
injuring a party, witness, or juror; § 1983(3) prohibits conspiracies to deprive persons of
equal protection of law.
2
(4:18CV0789)
For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted and the
Complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed.
I. Standard of Review
A complaint is subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) if it fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a dismissal, a complaint “must present
‘enough facts to state claim to relief that is plausible on its face’” when its factual allegations are
presumed true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in the non-moving party’s favor. Total
Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430, 434 (6th
Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678, (2009). Although pleadings and documents filed by pro se litigants are
“liberally construed” and held to a less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), pro se plaintiffs must still meet basic
pleading requirements and courts are not required to conjure allegations on their behalf. See
Erwin v. Edwards, 22 Fed.Appx. 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001). To survive dismissal, a pro se
pleading must satisfy the plausibility standards of Twombly and Iqbal. See Holland v. County of
Macomb, No. 16-2103, 2017 WL 3391653, at *1 (6th Cir. March 17, 2017) (citing Gunther v.
Castineta, 561 Fed.Appx. 497, 499 (6th Cir. 2014)).
3
(4:18CV0789)
III. Analysis
Even liberally construed, the Complaint (ECF No. 1) fails to allege any plausible claim on
which relief may be granted and must be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). First,
claims of conspiracy must be pled with specificity, and Defendants correctly contend that
Plaintiff’s purely conclusory allegations that the defendants “conspired together” to violate his
civil rights in connection with his state criminal case are insufficient to meet the plausibility
standards of Twombly and Iqbal with respect to any claim he purports to allege under § 1985.
See, e.g., Clay v. Crockett, No. 5:14CV1228, 2014 WL 6617717, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 21,
2014) (dismissing federal conspiracy claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 for lack
of specificity).
Furthermore, any civil rights conspiracy claim Plaintiff purports to allege is barred by the
Supreme Court’s decisions in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475 (1973). Heck held that a plaintiff has no cognizable damages claim for an
“allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid” unless the plaintiff first
proves that “the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by
executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or
called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at
486-87. Heck has been extended to claims under § 1985, see Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999,
4
(4:18CV0789)
1005-1006 (6th Cir. 2003), and applies whether a plaintiff seeks injunctive or monetary relief,
see Wilson v. Kinkela, No. 97-4035, 1998 WL 246401, at *1 (6th Cir. May 5, 1998).
Plaintiff’s “conspiracy” claims necessarily imply the invalidity of his Mahoning County
rape conviction and sentence, but nothing in the Complaint (ECF No. 1) suggests that his
conviction or sentence have been overturned, expunged, or called into question in any of the
ways articulated in Heck. Accordingly, his civil rights claims are barred by Heck and must be
dismissed. See Adams v. Morris, 90 Fed.Appx. 856, 858 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Because Adams’s
confinement has not been remedied by any of the procedures listed in Heck, the district court
properly found that his claims are not cognizable. . . .”).
To the extent Plaintiff seeks to have his criminal conviction vacated or set aside, his
claims are barred by Preiser, which held that “when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact
or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is
entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal
remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” 411 U.S. at 500. Plaintiff cannot challenge the fact or
duration of his confinement through a civil rights action under § 1985.
In addition, even if Plaintiff’s claims were not barred for the reasons stated above, the
Court agrees with Defendants that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Ohio’s
four-year statute of limitations, Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.09, has been held to apply to claims
under § 1985. See Hadsell v. Ford Motor Co., 566 F.Supp. 1254, 1255 (S.D. Ohio 1983)
(holding that a plaintiff’s action alleging a conspiracy in violation of § 1985 was time-barred
5
(4:18CV0789)
when it was not brought within Ohio’s four-year statute of limitations). Plaintiff filed this case
on March 28, 2018,2 well beyond the time Ohio’s four-year statute of limitations expired on any
conspiracy claim he might have had in connection with his rape conviction and sentence.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above,
Plaintiff’s Motion for the Correction of a Clerical Error Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)
(ECF No. 4) is granted;
Defendant Deena Calabrese’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is granted; and,
Defendant Paul C. Conn’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is granted.
Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants. 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.
August 31, 2018
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
2
In accordance with the prison mailbox rule, the Court will treat the Complaint
(ECF No. 1) as if filed on March 28, 2018, the date it was signed and dated. See ECF No.
1 at PageID #: 4. The Sixth Circuit has applied the prison mailbox rule in the context of
pro se prisoner cases. See Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing
Richard v. Ray, 290 F.3d 810, 812-13 (6th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (extending Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988))) (Under the prison mailbox rule, “a pro se prisoner’s
complaint is deemed filed when it is handed over to prison officials for mailing to the
court.”).
6
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?