Duke v. Rutherford County et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 9/16/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JEREMY WAYNE DUKE
Plaintiff,
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
v.
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, et al.
Defendants.
No. 3:16-2480
Chief Judge Sharp
MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Hardeman County Correctional Facility
in Whiteville, Tennessee. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Rutherford
County; the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department; Robert Arnold, Sheriff of Rutherford County;
News Channel 5, a CBS affiliate in Nashville; twenty (20) members of the Rutherford County
Sheriff’s Department; at least six civilians and nine others who have not been properly identified;
seeking injunctive relief and damages.
The plaintiff claims that, on March 22, 2015, a group of men attacked him and shot the
plaintiff in his face. The next day, the plaintiff surrendered to police and was charged with two
counts of aggravated assault. The plaintiff was released on bond but, a few days later, he was
returned to custody and charged with murder. Apparently, the plaintiff has been convicted for
conduct that occurred in March, 2015.
The complaint is disjointed and not very concise with its allegations and facts. Nevertheless,
liberally construing the complaint, it appears that the plaintiff is challenging what he considers to
1
be defamation of character when it was reported by the police and the news outlet that he had
murdered someone. The plaintiff also seems to be questioning the level of medical care he received
in May, 2015, alleges “misconduct between the investigators and prosecutors”, and claims that he
was “illegally prosecuted and wronged”. He asks that “guilty findings and punishment be
overturned” and that he be awarded damages.
The plaintiff signed the complaint and presumably placed it in the mail for posting on
September 7, 2016. Many of the plaintiff’s claims that can be deciphered from the complaint arose
in March and May of 2015. Thus, it appears that those claims involving defamation, medical care
and misconduct among the investigators are time-barred by the one year statute of limitations
imposed upon civil rights claims brought in Tennessee. Merriweather v. City of Memphis, 107 F.3d
396, 398 (6th Cir.1997). Nothing in the complaint suggests that the statute should be tolled so as to
permit the untimely filing of these claims. The Court, therefore, concludes that these untimely claims
are not actionable. Dellis v. Corrections Corp. of America, 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir.2001)(sua
sponte dismissal of an untimely prisoner complaint is appropriate).
The plaintiff also appears to be questioning the legality of the “guilty findings and
punishment” he has received as a result of the charges against him.
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
2
state or federal court. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claims challenging his continued confinement are
not yet cognizable in a § 1983 action.
Since it appears that the plaintiff’s claims are either time-barred or foreclosed by Heck, the
Court is obliged to dismiss the instant complaint sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An appropriate order will be entered.
____________________________
Kevin H. Sharp
Chief District Judge
3
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?