Henry v. Allen et al
Filing
18
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 13 Report and Recommendations. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint 12 with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). The Court further CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore the Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 10/28/2014. (km1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JEFFREY HENRY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JUDGE NADINE ALLEN, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
NO. 1:13-CV-00701
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (doc. 13), and Plaintiff’s Objection
(doc. 16).
AFFIRMS
For the reasons indicated herein, the Court ADOPTS and
the
Magistrate
Judge’s
Report
and
Recommendation
and
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint.
I.
Background
Petitioner had a sexual encounter with his wife’s niece,
Natasia Davis, at his mortgage business on February 10, 2010 (doc.
16).
Later that day he received a phone call from the niece’s
boyfriend, Defendant Ranz Reliford, demanding $5,000 in exchange
for not telling Petitioner’s wife about the encounter (Id.).
Petitioner indicated he needed time to raise the money (Id.).
Ultimately Petitioner only pulled together $1,500 and indicated he
needed
more
time
(Id.).
Soon
thereafter,
police
contacted
Petitioner investigating an allegation of rape (Id.).
The Hamilton County, Ohio grand jury charged Petitioner
with two counts of rape and one count of gross sexual imposition
(Id.).
Petitioner pled not guilty to each charge (Id.).
He went
to trial before the bench, which found him guilty of one charge of
rape and not guilty on the remaining counts (Id.).
The Court
sentenced Petitioner to a four-year term of incarceration (Id.).
Petitioner’s sentence was affirmed on appeal (Id.).
The Ohio
Supreme Court denied Petitioner leave to appeal, dismissing the
appeal “as not involving any substantial constitutional question”
(Id.).
Plaintiff brings the instant Section 1983 action against
Hamilton County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas Judge Nadine Allen;
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Seth S. Tieger of the Hamilton
County
Prosecutor’s
Office;
the
Hamilton
County
Prosecutor’s
Office; Jeff Heard, a police detective employed by Springdale,
Ohio, Police Department; the Springdale Police Department; Ranz
Reliford, and the State of Ohio (doc. 1).
Plaintiff claims
Defendant Springdale Police Department “ignored and withheld facts
and evidence which could have exonerated or, at least, mitigated
the nature and extent of the charges against him” (Id.). Plaintiff
specifically alleges that Defendant Jeff Heard “was aware of the
the lack of proof and inconsistent evidence,” as well as “the
extortion attempts,” yet failed to disclose to Plaintiff or his
attorney exculpatory evidence, including phone records and texts
(Id.). Plaintiff claims that all the defendants conspired together
“to have him arrested, wron[g]fully convicted and incarcerated” and
2
that each defendant played a role in hiding or withholding evidence
of [the extortion] by Reliford and Davis (Id.).
II.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
The Magistrate Judge reviewed the record and determined
that Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a viable claim for
damages under Section 1983 against most Defendants and, in any
event, his Section 1983 claims are barred from review on statuteof-limitations grounds and by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (doc. 13). Specifically, she
found Plaintiff has not stated a viable claim against the State of
Ohio, Ranz Reliford, the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office, the
Springdale Police Department, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney
Seth S. Tieger, and Judge Nadine Allen (Id.).
She noted the State
of Ohio should be dismissed because it is not a “person” within the
meaning of Section 1983 and, in any event, the Eleventh Amendment
bars Plaintiff from recovering damages from the State in a Section
1983 action (Id. citing Looker v. Ohio, No. 97-3490, 1998 WL
808369, at *1 (6th Cir. Nov. 9, 1998)).
Judge Allen and the
Prosecuting Attorney should also be dismissed, she noted, because
they are absolutely immune from liability (Id. citing Van de Kamp
v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 340-43 (2009)).
Because Ranz Reliford
is a private individual, and “not a person acting under color of
state law,” and because Plaintiff has not alleged facts that
Reliford acted in conspiracy with state actors, the Magistrate
Judge found he should be dismissed (Id. citing Hines v. Langhenry,
3
462 Fed. App’x 500, 503 (6th Cir. 2011)).
Next, the Magistrate
Judge found, the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office and the
Springdale Police Department should be dismissed because neither
party is a legal entity capable of being sued (Id. citing Schleiger
v. Gratiot Cnty. Prosecutor’s Office, No. 4:11-CV-13380, 2011 WL
7006407, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 30, 2011)).
Moreover, as he has
not alleged a policy or custom linked to an alleged deprivation of
constitutional rights, he has failed to state a claim for municipal
liability against those entities (Id.).
The Magistrate next found that Plaintiff’s Complaint is
barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations (Id.).
She
noted
the
incidents
forming
the
bases
for
his
cause
of
action–his sentence in the rape case on November 9, 2010, took
place over two years before this action commenced in September 2013
(Id.).
Finally, the Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff’s
allegations fail to state a viable claim under Section 1983 because
a ruling in his favor would necessarily cast doubt on the validity
of his state conviction (Id. citing Heck v. Humprey, 512 U.S. 477,
487 (1994)).
A Section 1983 action for money damages based on an
allegedly unconstitutional conviction or sentence will not lie
unless the Plaintiff has already succeeded in having the conviction
or sentence invalidated (Id.).
The record shows that Plaintiff’s
conviction and sentence stand; this Court only recently denied
Plaintiff’s request for a writ of habeas corpus. Case No. 1:13-CV4
00081, October 23, 2014.
III.
Plaintiff’s Objections
Plaintiff filed his Objection (doc. 16) nearly a week
after the deadline, but out of an abundance of caution and in the
interests of justice, the Court has reviewed it.
Plaintiff
contends the Magistrate Judge erred in recommending his Complaint
be dismissed for failure to state a claim against “most of the
Defendants” (doc. 16).
Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge
failed to offer any basis for the dismissal of Jeff Heard, the
Springdale police detective who failed to disclose exculpatory
information related to the extortion attempts (Id.).
Moreover, he
contends, Ranz Reliford was a willful participant in the joint
action of state actors, thus, in Plaintiff’s view Reliford should
be held accountable (Id.).
Plaintiff next argues the Magistrate Judge erred in
recommending that Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims are barred on
statute of limitations grounds (Id.).
He contends, based on the
discovery rule, that he found that Defendants conspired to hide and
misrepresent the evidence of extortion (Id.).
He appears to
further contend that he is entitled to discovery so as to establish
that his Complaint is timely (Id.).
IV.
Discussion
Having reviewed this matter de novo, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
5
Recommendation thoughtful, well-reasoned, and correct.
The Report
and Recommendation methodically demonstrates why each Defendant
should be dismissed.
Plaintiff raised the exception of Defendant
Jeff Heard, the police detective.
However, Defendant Heard is
covered by the statute of limitations. Although Plaintiff seeks to
preserve his Complaint through more discovery, it is apparent that
he knew the facts regarding the alleged extortion as early as
February 2010 when he faced it.
The alleged extortion in no way is
exculpatory with regard to his charge and conviction of rape; it
merely shows that his victim chose to strike back.
Similarly such
alleged extortion does not serve to mitigate:
Defendant was
charged with forcibly subjecting Davis to an unwanted sexual
encounter, and his conviction stands.
As such, his entire Section
1983 Complaint is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 48687 (1994).
V. Conclusion
For the reasons indicated herein, the Court finds the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation well-taken in all
respects.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS such Report
and Recommendation (doc. 13), and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint
(doc. 12) with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915A(b).
The Court further CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good
faith, and therefore the Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in
6
forma pauperis.
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir.
1997).
SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 28, 2014
s/S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge
7
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?