Dreyfuse v. Chiles et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 7 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint; accepting and incorporating herein the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Eifert; dismissing the Complaint, with prejudice, with the exception of Plaintiff's claims relating to the arrest warrant, which are dismissed without prejudice; further directing this action be removed from the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 7/20/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION

EDWARD “JESSE” DREYFUSE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-04031

CHRISTOPHER D. CHILES,
in his individual capacity;
SEAN HAMMERS,
in his individual capacity; and
RYAN BENTLEY,
in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action was referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States
Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation
for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Following an initial screening pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Magistrate Judge has submitted proposed findings and recommends that
the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, with the exception of Plaintiff’s claims relating to
the arrest warrant, which she recommends should be dismissed without prejudice. Neither party
has filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. However,
Plaintiff, acting pro se, has filed a Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint. ECF No. 7.

Plaintiff filed his action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that “Defendants
Christopher D. Chiles (“Chiles”), a prosecuting attorney, and Sean Hammers (“Hammers”), an
assistant prosecuting attorney, conspired to knowingly and intentionally present perjured

testimony from Defendant Ryan Bentley (“Bentley”), a city police officer, to the grand jury in
Plaintiff’s state criminal case on June 19, 2012.” PF&R, at 2, ECF No. 6 (citation omitted).
Additionally, Plaintiff claims that his arrest warrant was based upon the same false information.
Id. Plaintiff sues each Defendant in his individual capacity for monetary damages. Id. at 2-3.

In the Proposed Findings and Recommendations, the Magistrate Judge found that
all three Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity against the claims made by Plaintiff with
respect to the alleged perjured testimony being presented to the grand jury. Id. at 5-6. With respect
to Plaintiff’s allegations of false arrest and false imprisonment, the Magistrate Judge found the
claims “are undoubtedly a thinly veiled collateral attack on [Plaintiff’s] criminal conviction, which
is barred by Heck [v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484-87 (1994)].” Id. at 7. Plaintiff does not object
to any of these findings and, in fact, states in his Motion for Leave to Amend that the “PF&R has
correctly determined that Plaintiff’s Complaint is essentially an attack upon his criminal conviction
pursuant to [Heck].” Motion for Leave to Am., at 2, ECF No. 7.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff argues he should be able to amend his Complaint because
the state courts have refused to address his request for habeas corpus relief, and he has no way to
overturn his conviction. In his amendment, he seeks to add Defendants in their official capacity,
to remove his demands for monetary damages, and to have this Court award him “Declaratory
Judgment . . . [d]efining . . . [his] rights in the future and the substance of the violations committed.”
Prop. Am. Compl., at 6 & 7, ECF No. 7-1. He also seeks unspecified injunctive relief and any other
appropriate relief. Plaintiff, however, dropped his claim for false arrest and imprisonment based

-2-

upon his arrest warrant. See Compl. (“claim 6”), at 13-15, ECF No. 2, 20-22; Prop. Am. Compl.
(“claim six redacted in its entirety”), at 9, ECF No. 7-1, at 10. 1

In ruling on a motion to amend, Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15
(a)(2). Leave “‘should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing
party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would . . . [be]
futile.’” Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. Oroweat Foods
Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)). In this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed
amendment is futile.

Initially, the Court finds that it is unclear what injunctive relief or declaratory
judgment Plaintiff seeks from these Defendants. To the extent Plaintiff seeks a ruling by the state
court on a habeas petition, Plaintiff cannot obtain such relief from these Defendants. Additionally,
if Plaintiff is seeking a declaration that Defendants’ grand jury actions were improper, such an
attack, as explained by the Magistrate Judge, is precluded because all three Defendants are entitled
to absolute immunity on that issue, and Plaintiff’s proposed amendments do not change the fact
that absolute immunity bars his claims. Therefore, the Court finds that the claims in the proposed
Amended Complaint are futile.

1

Plaintiff also removed his “claim 5” for “executing a scheme to deprive another the right
to honest services.” Compl., at 11-12, ECF No. 2, at 18-19.
-3-

Accordingly, given the futility of the proposed Amended Complaint, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend. ECF No. 7. Having no objections to the Proposed
Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Court further accepts and
incorporates them herein and DISMISSES the Complaint, with prejudice, with the exception of
Plaintiff’s claims relating to the arrest warrant, which is DISMISSED, without prejudice. The
Court further ORDERS this action be REMOVED from the docket of this Court.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties.

ENTER:

July 20, 2018

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-