Durham v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this lawsuit be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 7/17/15. (mrp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WILLIAM EARL DURHAM,
Plaintiff,
versus
PAM NICKLES, et al.,
Defendants.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-369

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff William Earl Durham, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn,
United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws
and orders of this court.
The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge concerning this matter. The magistrate judge recommends this lawsuit be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The court has received the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge,
along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Plaintiff filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation. The court must therefore conduct a de novo review of the
objections.
Plaintiff was previously convicted for failing to comply with sex offender registration
requirements. He alleges the defendants took certain improper actions which resulted in his
conviction. The magistrate judge concluded plaintiff’s claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994), because a finding in plaintiff’s favor would call into question the validity
of his conviction.
In his objections, plaintiff states he is not seeking to call into question the validity of his
conviction. He states he has filed a separate petition for writ of habeas corpus concerning his

conviction. Plaintiff states he is claiming that the defendants either refused to investigate his claim
that he was not required to register as a sex offender or knew he was not required to register, but
failed to take action to prevent him from being arrested and convicted. He states his lawsuit is not
a challenge to his conviction, but to the fact that the defendants unlawfully required him to register
as a sex offender.
The court takes note of plaintiff’s assertion that he is not seeking to challenge the validity
of his conviction. However, this assertion does not prevent his lawsuit from being dismissed.
In order to find in plaintiff’s favor, this court would have to conclude that the defendants acted
improperly when they determined plaintiff was required to register as a sex offender. As
petitioner was convicted for failing to comply with sex offender registration requirements, such
a conclusion would “necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. at 487. Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck requires that his complaint be
dismissed because he does not allege his conviction has been invalidated. Id.
ORDER
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.

The findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is
ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate
judge’s recommendation.
.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 17th day of July, 2015.

________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2