Shephard v. Christian et al

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White: This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. (case terminated) (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

TIMOTHY C. SHEPHARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN CHRISTIAN et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV-17-449-RAW-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner who is incarcerated in the Pontotoc County Jail in Ada,
Oklahoma, has filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pontotoc
County Sheriff John Christian and Pontotoc County Jail Administrator Mike Sinnett. He also
names “Mrs. Vicky” as an “other unknown” defendant. (Dkt. 1 at 12).
Plaintiff alleges he was denied the right to assistance of counsel in his criminal
proceedings. He claims that on November 27, 2017, he was coerced by “Mrs. Vicky” to sign
a Waiver of Constitutional Rights and Plea of Guilty for his misdemeanor criminal case.
Plaintiff asserts he explained that he did not understand why he was being served with court
papers by Mrs. Vicky, who is a jail guard, and why she encouraged him to sign it. He further
alleges he was not given a copy of the charges or the document he signed. Plaintiff contends
Defendant Sheriff Christian allows nothing to happen in the jail without his consent, and
Defendant Jail Administrator Sinnett “has total control” over the daily operations of the jail.
(Dkt. 1 at 5, 12).
The court has carefully reviewed the record and construes Plaintiff’s complaint

liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). This relaxed standard, however, does not
relieve his burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be
based. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff is asking for punitive damages for having been coerced into a denial of his
constitutional rights. (Dkt. 1 at 5). To the extent Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for his
alleged unconstitutional incarceration, he first must prove his “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 v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (citing
28 U.S.C. § 2254). When judgment for a plaintiff in a § 1983 suit “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.” Id.
Furthermore, before presenting a claim challenging a conviction or sentence to a federal
court in a habeas corpus petition, the applicant must exhaust all remedies available in the
state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
Because Plaintiff has not presented evidence that his conviction or sentence has been
invalidated, the Court finds his claim for damages is not cognizable under § 1983. Therefore,
this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of March 2018.

2