Howard v. Johson et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 6 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 9/4/2018. (nkl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
JECORI D. HOWARD, #1919182
§
VS.
§
SONYA JOHSON, ET AL.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18cv3
MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Jecori Howard, an inmate confined at the Telford Unit within the Texas prison
system, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cause of action was referred for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition of the complaint.
The underlying complaint was filed on December 1, 2017, (Dkt. #1). Howard argued that
Defendants, various members of the Marshall Police Department as well as both the District
Attorney’s Office and his counsel, violated his constitutional rights by falsifying evidence and
paperwork, lying to the grand jury, using the newspapers to convict him, and “building a bogus
case” knowing that no evidence was present. He alleged that these circumstances formed the basis
of his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. He seeks monetary damages in the
amount of 100 million dollars to restore his family name and to have his “case completely
overturned.”
After a review of the complaint, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report, (Dkt. # 6),
recommending that Howard’s civil rights lawsuit be dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994). Howard has filed timely objections, (Dkt. # 9). In his objections, Howard
argues that he “clearly” is challenging his conviction, but denying his civil rights lawsuit would
1
amount to a due process violation. He further reiterates that trial counsel was ineffective and that
there has been a “manifest injustice” because no evidence exists with which to convict him.
Howard requests a stay of these proceedings so that he can have the opportunity to file a
section 2254 habeas proceeding.
The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Howard’s civil rights claims are barred by
Heck.
The Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff seeking damages under § 1983 for actions
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or a sentence invalid must first prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or otherwise called into question.
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. The Court provided the following explanation:
We think the hoary principle that civil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for
challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments applies to § 1983 damages
actions that necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the unlawfulness of his conviction or
confinement, just as it has always applied to actions for malicious prosecution.
Id. at 486. The Court further held that “when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the
district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply
the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless
the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id. at
487.
Here, as the Magistrate Judge found, all of Howard’s claims are challenges to his
conviction. He asserted that his rights were violated through falsifying evidence, fabrications,
pre-trial publicity through the newspaper, and insufficient evidence. These claims, if proven,
would call the validity of his conviction and sentence into question—as his claim for damages “is
connected to the legality of his present confinement.” See Hudson v. Hughes, 98 F.3d 868, 871
(5th Cir. 1996). Howard readily admits—in his objections—that he is “clearly” challenging his
conviction. He has not shown or articulated that his conviction has been invalidated or any way
2
called into question by a court. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that his
claims are barred by Heck. 512 U.S. at 486 (“A claim for damages bearing that relationship
to a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.”).
Turning to Howard’s request to stay these proceedings, the Court notes that a stay is not
required. The statute of limitations period, for Heck claims, begins when the Heck conditions are
met. See Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 27-28 (5th Cir. 1994) (explaining that if Heck applies
to a claim, the claims have not yet accrued and so the statute of limitations is not a concern); Heck,
512 U.S. at 489 (holding that “the statute of limitations poses no difficulty while the state
challenges are being pursued, since the § 1983 claim has not yet arisen.”). Accordingly, because
Howard’s Heck claims have not been accrued—as he has not shown that his conviction has been
invalidated or called into question—a stay is not necessary.
The Court further notes that Howard must file any section 2254 motion within one year
of the latest of:
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the
expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was
prevented from filing such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the
Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have
been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
3
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the record and the Magistrate
Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).
Upon such de
novo review, the Court has determined that the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge is
correct and Howard’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections, (Dkt. # 9), are overruled and the Report of the
.
Magistrate Judge, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Further, it is
ORDERED that the above-styled civil rights lawsuit is DISMISSED with prejudice and
that Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice to their being asserted again until the
Heck conditions are met. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
DENIED.
SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of September, 2018.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?