Roberts v. Champion, No. 99-CV-842-P (J).
Decision Date | 27 March 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 99-CV-842-P (J). |
Citation | 255 F.Supp.2d 1272 |
Parties | Leonard Renal ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. Ron CHAMPION; James Saffle; and Ron Colliver, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
Leonard Renal Roberts, SCC-Lexington, Lexington, Pro se.
Linda Kathryn Soper, Office of the Attorney General, Oklahoma City, for Ron Champion, Warden, James Saffle, Ron Colliver, Case Manager Supervisor, defendants.
The Court has for consideration the Report and Recommendation (the "Report") of the U.S. Magistrate Judge entered on February 20, 2003 (Docket # 36), in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The Magistrate Judge recommends that, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), Defendants' motion to dismiss (# 12-1) be granted. On March 19, 2003, after receiving an extension of time, Plaintiff, a state inmate appearing pro se, filed his objections to the Report (# 39). Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See #3.
In the Report, the Magistrate Judge addresses each of Plaintiffs fourteen (14) claims and Defendants' response to the claims. After thorough analysis of each claim, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of all claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the matter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having done so, the Court concurs with Magistrate Judge's determinations. The Court concludes that no purpose would be served by repeating those determinations or by presenting any additional analysis here as to those determinations, with the exception of one claim addressed by Plaintiff in his objection.
In his objection to the Report, Plaintiff states an articulated objection only to the recommendation concerning his claims arising from his "bogus & malice" misconduct for Menacing Staff. As he did in his complaint, Plaintiff continues to allege due process violations and to challenge the validity of evidence presented during disciplinary proceedings. However, as correctly determined by the Magistrate Judge, the Supreme Court has made clear that "[A] state prisoner's claim for damages is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if `a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,' unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously been invalidated." Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)). This rule of law applies not only when the prisoner challenges his judgment as a substantive matter but also when he challenges misconducts entered as a result of prison disciplinary infractions. Balisok, 520 U.S. at 648, 117 S.Ct. 1584. Having reviewed the record in this case, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs request for damages resulting from his prison disciplinary proceedings, must be dismissed based on Heck. Therefore, the Magistrate's recommendation that Plaintiffs claim be dismissed shall be adopted over Plaintiffs objection.
Furthermore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Plaintiffs request for expungement of the misconduct from his prison record is not appropriate in this § 1983 civil rights action. That request must be presented in a habeas corpus action after exhausting state remedies. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) ( ). The Court concludes that the Magistrate's recommendation that Plaintiffs claim be dismissed shall be adopted over Plaintiffs objection.
Therefore, after reviewing Plaintiffs objections to the Report and the facts of this case, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court finds Plaintiffs objections lack merit and concludes that the Report should be adopted and affirmed in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, Defendants' motion to dismiss should be granted.
The Court further finds an additional basis for dismissal is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). As stated above, Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 ("PLRA"), a district court may dismiss an action filed in forma pauperis "at any time" if the court determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiffs claims fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and this action must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). This dismissal shall count as Plaintiffs first "prior occasion" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1
The Court also finds that Plaintiffs motion to file a supplemental complaint (Docket # 31) should be denied. Plaintiff filed his motion to amend or supplement almost two (2) years after Defendants filed the motion to dismiss, or alternative motion for summary judgment considered by is the Magistrate Judge in the Report. After reviewing the three (3) supplemental asserted by Plaintiff in his "Supplemental Complaint and Brief," the Court finds that to allow Plaintiff to proceed on the claims would be futile. If the proffered amendments fail to cure the deficiencies of the original complaint or if the newly asserted claims would be futile, denial of a motion to amend is appropriate. See Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897, 906 (10th Cir.2000) (citing Grossman v. Novell, Inc., 120 F.3d 1112, 1126 (10th Cir.1997)). Therefore, Plaintiffs "motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint" shall be denied.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY OR DERED that:
3. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (# 12-2) is declared moot.
4. Plaintiffs "motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint" (Docket # 31) is denied.
5. The Clerk is directed to flag this dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as Plaintiffs first "prior occasion" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
6. This Order is a final order terminating this action.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tenison v. Byrd
...events adversely affecting an individual are not presumed to be violations of the equal protection clause." Roberts v. Champion, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1290 (N.D. Okla. 2003), aff'd, 91 F. App'x 108 (10th Cir. 2004). 2. Summary Judgment on the Equal Protection Claims Defendants acknowledge t......
-
Hunnicutt v. Peters
...(1979)). “Isolated events adversely affecting an individual are not presumed to be violations of the equal protection clause.” Roberts, 255 F.Supp.2d at 1290. However, equal treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment not require precisely identical treatment and resource allocation. See, e.g.......
-
Hunnicutt v. Peters
... ... (D.N.M. Dec. 5, 2007); Roberts v. Champion, 255 ... F.Supp.2d 1272, 1290 (D. Okla. 2003) (citing ... ...
-
Sabot v. Dakota, Case No. 1:17-cv-069
...and sentence in state district court for terrorizing. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994); see also Roberts v. Champion, 255 F. Supp.2d 1272, 1283 (N.D. Okla. 2003) ("If a judgment in a § 1983 action would necessarily imply the invalidity of the prisoner's punishment, the § 1983 acti......
-
Roberts v. Champion.
...District Court RESTRICTIONS SERVICES Roberts v. Champion, 255 F.Supp.2d 1272 (N.D.Okla. 2003). An inmate brought a claim under [section] 1983 against prison officials, alleging multiple constitutional violations arising from the inmate's misconduct proceedings and his transfer from a correc......