Dotson v. State of Tennessee et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 2/28/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

GREGORY TYRONE DOTSON
Plaintiff,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.
Defendants.

No.
(No.3:14-mc-0252)
Judge Trauger

M E M O R A N D U M
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Middle
Tennessee Mental Health Institute in Nashville. He brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Tennessee;
Jerry Lester, Warden of the West Tennessee State Penitentiary;
Wayne

Carpenter,

Institution;

five

Warden
members

of

the
of

the

Riverbend

Maximum

Riverbend

Security

staff;

Derrick

Schofield, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction
(TDOC); two TDOC administrators; Monte Watkins, a Criminal Court
Judge

in

Davidson

County;

Deborah

Housel,

a

Davidson

County

prosecutor; Charles Walker, a member of the Davidson County Bar;
Howard Gentry, the Davidson County Criminal Court Clerk; and two
members of his staff; seeking injunctive relief and damages.
The plaintiff was convicted of vandalism and is currently
serving a sentence of six years and one month for that crime. He
alleges that the conviction is “invalid, void, null and illegal”.

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
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.

____________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge