Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stewart v. Steenbock

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

March 10, 2017

DEON A. STEWART, Plaintiff,
v.
KELLY STEENBOCK, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Deon Stewart, who is incarcerated at the Lincoln Correctional Center, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing 7.) The court now conducts an initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

         I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action requesting money damages and a “resentenc[ing] . . . for . . . less time.” (Filing 1 at CM/ECF pp. 6-7.) He alleges that the defendant, the Douglas County Public Defender, failed to raise his insanity at his plea hearing, his presentence investigation was not complete at the time of his plea, and the “presentence investigator” was not in court when Plaintiff pled guilty. Plaintiff says his lawyer and the judge could have given him “a better deal.” (Filing 1 at CM/ECF p. 6.)

         II. STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

         The court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         III. ANALYSIS

         Plaintiff's allegations all relate to errors committed in his plea hearing which led to a sentence that Plaintiff believes is too long. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff on his § 1983 claims would “necessarily imply the invalidity of his . . . sentence.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). In order to recover damages for an invalid sentence,

a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.

Id. at 486-87. See also Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (challenges “to particulars affecting [a sentence's] duration are the province of habeas corpus” (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973)); further, where success of a § 1983 damages action would question the duration of a sentence, “the litigant must first achieve favorable termination of his available state, or federal habeas, opportunities to challenge the underlying conviction or sentence”).

         Because Plaintiff has failed to allege that his sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed without prejudice[1] pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.[2]

         IT IS ORDERED:

         1. This case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), for failure to state a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.