Davis v. Shanahan

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)ConclusionSince Plaintiff's complaint is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory," it will be dismissed, without prejudice, as legally frivolous. Wilson, 878 F.2d at 774. Under the circumstances, the court is confident that service of process is not only unwarranted, but would waste the increasingly scarce judicial resources that § 1915 is designed to preserve. See Roman, 904 F.2d at 195 n. 3. An appropriate Order will enter.Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 1/28/15. (cc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAMION DAVIS,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
CIVIL NO. 3:CV-15-145
:
v.
:
:
(Judge Conaboy)
:
KEVIN M. SHANAHAN,
:
:
Defendant
:
___________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM
Background
This pro se civil rights action was filed by Damion Davis, an
inmate presently confined at the Dauphin County Prison, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff has also submitted a request for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Named as sole Defendant is

Trooper Kevin Shanahan of the Pennsylvania State Police.
Plaintiff’s action will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b).
Plaintiff states that during March, 2011 the motor vehicle he
was operating while accompanied by his wife in the vicinity of
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania was pulled over by Trooper Shanahan.
Doc. 1, p. 5.

See

Shanahan allegedly told the Plaintiff that he had

stopped the car because Davis was speeding.

When Plaintiff

responded that the defendant was lying, the Defendant asked if

1

Davis had been drinking adding that there was a strong odor of
alcohol coming from the car.

Plaintiff acknowledges that he

admitted that He “had like two beers 3 hrs before” and that the
odor was from his wife who had been drinking heavily and had
vomited.1

Id.

After the Plaintiff admittedly “got smart with the officer”
Shanahan allegedly got mad, ordered the Plaintiff out of the car,
and administered a field sobriety and breathalyser test.
pp. 5-6.

Id. at

Although Davis claims to have passed the testing, he was

nonetheless arrested by Trooper Shanahan.

Due to Plaintiff’s

purportedly unwarranted arrest (and presumably his present
confinement) he claims that he has lost his wife, kids, and job.
As relief, Plaintiff seeks whatever relief that will give him his
life back.2

See id., ¶ V.
Discussion

When considering a complaint accompanied by a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, a district court may rule that process
should not issue if the complaint is malicious, presents an
indisputably meritless legal theory, or is predicated on clearly
baseless factual contentions.

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

1

The Plaintiff also purportedly told the Trooper that he had
been drinking he would not have been able to start the car because
of the interlock system on his car’s ignition system due to a prior
driving under the influence (DUI) offense.
2

It is unclear whether the arrest by the Defendant led to a
successful criminal prosecution or alternatively whether Davis is
in jail pending disposition of a charge filed by Trooper Shanahan.
2

327-28 (1989), Douris v. Middleton Township, 293 Fed. Appx. 130,
132 (3d Cir. 2008).

Indisputably meritless legal theories are

those "in which either it is readily apparent that the plaintiff's
complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or that the defendants are
clearly entitled to immunity from suit ... ."

Roman v. Jeffes, 904

F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894 F.2d
1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 1990)).
Habeas Corpus
The Complaint include factual assertions that Davis is being
improperly confined.

In addition, as partial relief, Plaintiff

indicates that he is seeking his immediate release and the
dismissal of his underlying criminal charges/conviction.
1, ¶ V.

See Doc.

It is well-settled that inmates may not use civil rights

actions to challenge the fact or duration of their confinement or
to seek earlier or speedier release.
U.S. 475 (1975).

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit has similarly recognized that civil rights claims seeking
release from confinement sounded in habeas corpus.

See Georgevich

v. Strauss, 772 F.2d 1078, 1086 (3d Cir. 1985).
In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997), the United
States Supreme Court concluded that a civil rights claim for
declaratory relief “based on allegations ... that necessarily imply
the invalidity of the punishment imposed, is not cognizable” in a
civil rights action.

Id. at 646.

Pursuant to the standards

announced in Georgevich and Edwards, Plaintiff’s present claims of
3

illegal confinement and his implied request to be released are not
properly raised in a civil rights complaint.

Accordingly, those

claims will be dismissed without prejudice to any right Davis may
have to pursue said allegations via a federal habeas corpus
petition.
Heck
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court
ruled that a constitutional cause of action for damages does not
accrue "for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,
or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render
a conviction or sentence invalid," until the plaintiff 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."

Id. at 486-

87.
Based on the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations, a finding in
his favor would imply the invalidity of his ongoing Dauphin County
confinement.

There is no indication that Davis has successfully

challenged either his arrest by Trooper Shanahan and/or any
resulting conviction or the length of his ongoing incarceration.
Consequently, pursuant to Heck, Davis’ instant Complaint to
the extent that it seeks an award of monetary damages on the basis
of illegal confinement is premature because he cannot maintain a
cause of action for an unlawful conviction or an excessive
4

imprisonment until the basis for the conviction and imprisonment is
overturned.
Conclusion
Since Plaintiff's complaint is "based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory," it will be dismissed, without prejudice,
as legally frivolous.

Wilson, 878 F.2d at 774.

Under the

circumstances, the court is confident that service of process is
not only unwarranted, but would waste the increasingly scarce
judicial resources that § 1915 is designed to preserve.
904 F.2d at 195 n. 3.

See Roman,

An appropriate Order will enter.

S/Richard P. Conaboy
RICHARD P. CONABOY
United States District Judge

DATED: JANUARY 28, 2015

5