Martinez v. Nash et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 2/23/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

ROMAN MARTINEZ
Plaintiff,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

v.
TIM NASH, et al.
Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0097
Chief Judge Sharp

M E M O R A N D U M
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Putnam
County Justice Center in Cookeville, Tennessee. He brings this
action

pursuant

to

42

U.S.C.

§

1983

against

Tim

Nash,

Jail

Administrator at the Justice Center, and Kim Veers, Sentence
Manager, seeking his immediate release for time served and damages.
On August 26, 2016, the plaintiff was mistakenly released from
custody. After the mistake was discovered, the plaintiff was rearrested and returned to custody. The plaintiff claims that the
defendants’ error in releasing him from custody has caused him
great emotional despair and constitutes double jeopardy.
A prisoner does not state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 if a ruling on his claim would necessarily render his
continuing confinement invalid, until and unless the reason for his
continued confinement has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged

1

by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or has
been called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994).
Nowhere in the complaint does it suggest that the plaintiff has
already successfully tested the validity of his confinement in
either a state or federal court. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claims
are not yet cognizable in a § 1983 action.
In the absence of a cognizable claim, the Court is obliged to
dismiss the instant action sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An appropriate order will be entered.

______________________
Kevin H. Sharp
Chief District Judge

2