McKnight v. Forese et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Since McKnights civil rights complaint is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory," it will be dismissed, without prejudice, as legally frivolous. Wilson, 878 F.2d at 774. An appropriate Order will enter.Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 5/4/15. (cc)

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

WILLIAM F. MCKNIGHT,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
CIVIL NO. 3:CV-15-626
:
v.
:
:
(Judge Conaboy)
:
CHIEF FORESE, ET AL.,
:
:
Defendants
:
___________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM
Background
William F. McKnight, an inmate presently confined at the
Mahanoy State Correctional Institution, Frackville, Pennsylvania
(SCI-Mahanoy) initiated this pro se civil rights action.
Accompanying the Complaint is a request for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.

See Doc. 2.

The Complaint is currently before the

Court for preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(b).

For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s action

will be dismissed without prejudice.
Named as Defendants are Chief Forese, Sergeant William Morgan,
and Officer Connor Hedrick of the Lehigh Township, Pennsylvania
Police Department.1

Plaintiff states that on May 24, 2013,

1

Plaintiff notes that Lehigh Township has a mailing address
of Gouldsboro, Pennsylvania.
1

Sergeant Morgan applied for the issuance of a search warrant.
Doc. 1, ¶ IV(2).

See

The application was allegedly granted on May 31,

2013 but had expiration date of June 2, 2013.
McKnight indicates that the search warrant was executed on a
private residence on June 10, 2013 by Defendants Morgan and
Hedrick.

During the ensuing search, firearms were seized from the

residence.

As a result, criminal charges were filed against the

Plaintiff.

McKnight claims that his constitutional rights were

violated in that evidence used against him was seized pursuant to
an expired search warrant.2

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages

for each day he spends incarcerated as well as punitive damages.
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,

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

2

The Complaint adds that Chief Forese acquiesced in the
alleged execution of an expired search warrant.
2

1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 1990)).
As discussed above, the Complaint include factual assertions
indicating that McKnight is being improperly confined and was
subjected to an improper state criminal prosecution.

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.

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1975).

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
illegal confinement are not properly raised in a civil rights
complaint.
The United States Supreme Court in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994), 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 whole
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid," until
the plaintiff proves that the "conviction or sentence has been
3

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.

As previously noted, McKnight’s action raises claims that he
was subjected to a unconstitutional search and seizure which led to
a criminal conviction.

Based on the nature of Plaintiff’s

allegations, a finding in his favor would imply the invalidity of
his ongoing federal confinement.

There is no indication that

McKnight has successfully appealed or otherwise challenged his
state criminal conviction.
Consequently, pursuant to Heck, McKnight’s instant Complaint
to the extent that it seeks an award of monetary damages on the
basis of illegal conviction and confinement is premature because he
cannot maintain a cause of action for an unlawful conviction or an
excessive imprisonment until the basis for the conviction and
imprisonment is overturned.
Conclusion
Since McKnight’s civil rights complaint is "based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory," it will be dismissed, without
prejudice, as legally frivolous.

Wilson, 878 F.2d at 774.

appropriate Order will enter.
S/Richard P. Conaboy
RICHARD P. CONABOY
United States District Judge
DATED: MAY 4, 2015
4

An