Bennett v. State of Ohio I.R.S. Service et al

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion and Order. As the Complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting Plaintiff might have a valid claim, the Court finds this case is appropriately subject to summary dismissal. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. Judge John R. Adams on 03/02/2015. (M,TL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
YABACUSHYANEI BENNETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF OHIO I.R.S. SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:14 CV 2727
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On December 15, 2014, Plaintiff pro se Yabcushyanei Bennett filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action against the “State of Ohio I.R.S. Service” and Attorney Anthony Veigh. His extensive
complaint essentially seeks to challenge his conviction in this Court, pursuant to a guilty plea, for: 1)
Conspiracy to Conduct an Illegal Gambling Business; and, 2) Conspiracy to Commit the Laundering
of Monetary Instruments. United States v. Bennett, Case No. 5:14 CR 119-01.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009). The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual
allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation. Id. A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked
assertion devoid of further factual enhancement. Id. It must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. 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. Id. The plausibility standard is not
akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a
defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to
relief.’ ” Id.
A plaintiff may not raise claims in a civil rights action if a judgment on the merits of those
claims would affect the validity of his conviction or sentence, unless the conviction or sentence has
been set aside. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486 (1994). The holding in Heck applies whether the plaintiff seeks injunctive, declaratory or
monetary relief. Wilson v. Kinkela, No. 97-4035, 1998 WL 246401 at *1 (6th Cir. May 5, 1998).
Plaintiff seeks to raise claims which, if found to have merit, would call into question the validity of
his convictions. Such a challenge must be raised, if at all, by a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255.
Thus, even liberally construed, the Complaint does not contain allegations reasonably
suggesting Plaintiff might have a valid claim, and the Court finds this case is appropriately subject
to summary dismissal. See, Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999)(complaint may be
summarily dismissed when claim is not arguably plausible).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 2, 2015

/s/ John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE