Beene v. Beene/Primm et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 1/15/2015. (xc: Pro se party by regular and certified mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.) (ds)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
CRAIG BEENE
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANCES BEENE/PRIMM, et al.
Defendants.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
No. 3:14-2386
Judge Trauger
M E M O R A N D U M
The
plaintiff,
proceeding
pro
se,
is
an
inmate
at
the
Northeast Correctional Complex in Mountain City, Tennessee. He
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Frances
Primm, his former wife; and Cedric Cusik, a member of the Dickson,
Tennessee Police Department; seeking declaratory, injunctive and
monetary relief.
In September, 2004, the plaintiff pled guilty to attempted
first
degree
murder,
especially
aggravated
kidnapping
and
aggravated assault. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he received a
sentence of seventeen (17) years in prison. Beene v. State, 2014 WL
3439508 (Tenn. Crim. App.).
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants acted to have him
“illegally
convicted”.
Docket
Entry
No.1-1
at
pg.2.
More
specifically, the plaintiff claims that his former wife deleted
1
evidence (photographs) from her facebook account and that Officer
Cusik
encouraged
“persons
not
to
testify
truthfully
for
the
plaintiff”.
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
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?