Bell v. Morgan et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 14 Motion for Discovery filed by Joe T Bell, 15 Motion for Hearing filed by Joe T Bell, 13 Report and Recommendation, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 9/7/16. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOE T. BELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEAN PATRICK MORGAN,
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV-16-706-R

ORDER
Mr. Bell filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of his civil rights
with regard to his criminal conviction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), the matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for preliminary review. On August 11,
2016, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation wherein she recommended the action
be dismissed upon filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994), because Plaintiff’s conviction has not been overturned and therefore any claims challenging
the constitutionality of his criminal proceedings would be premature as they would call into question
the validity of his conviction. The matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff’s timely objection
to the Report and Recommendation, which gives rise to the Court’s obligation to undertake a de
novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff makes specific
objection. Having conducted this review the Court finds as follows.
Plaintiff’s objection argues that the Court is misunderstanding his claims and that to fail to
permit him to proceed would relieve the Defendants of their burden to prove the claims are false.
Plaintiff, however, misunderstands the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff was convicted in the
District Court of Oklahoma County in 1997 and is currently serving a fifty-year sentence. The

claims he seeks to pursue involve whether his conviction is valid because, he alleges, that his
constitutional rights were violated during the trial process. Such a claim cannot give rise to civil
relief, however, until Plaintiff’s conviction has been invalidated, for example by the granting of an
application for post-conviction relief or a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Until
such time as his conviction has been invalidated he cannot pursue a civil rights claim that would
require, in order for him to prevail, invalidation of his conviction. Accordingly, his claims that
exculpatory evidence was withheld and that false testimony was used to obtain a conviction cannot
proceed at this time. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a stay in this case because he has filed a
petition in the District Court of Oklahoma County. The Court declines to enter a stay herein,
Plaintiff may return upon invalidation of his conviction. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Discovery and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing are hereby denied as moot. The Report and
Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED and this action will be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of September, 2016.