UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRIAN ROY SMITH, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-11392

v. HON. AVERN COHN

MITCH PERRY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

I. Introduction

This is a pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Michigan prisoner Brian

Roy Smith, currently confined at the Newberry Correctional Facility, challenges his state

criminal proceedings.1

 Plaintiff names the warden at the Newberry Correctional Facility

as defendant and is suing him in his official capacity. Plaintiff seeks reversal of his

convictions and release from custody. Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed

without prepayment of the filing fee for this action. See Doc. 3. As will be explained,

the complaint must be dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted.

1

Plaintiff was convicted of multiple counts of possession of child sexually abusive

material or activity and using a computer to commit a crime pursuant to a plea in the

Genesee County Circuit Court and was sentenced to terms of five to 20 years

imprisonment in 2013. See Offender Profile, Michigan Offender Tracking Information

System, http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/OTIS2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=239833.

2:15-cv-11392-AC-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 19
II. Legal Standard

The Court is required to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint

before service on a defendant if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious,

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against

a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B). The Court is similarly required to dismiss a complaint seeking redress

against government entities, officers, and employees which it finds to be frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A

complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

Finally, a pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). 

To state a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: 

(1) he or she was deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the federal

Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) the deprivation was caused by a

person acting under color of state law. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57

(1978); Harris v. Circleville, 583 F.3d 356, 364 (6th Cir. 2009).

III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s claims concern his state criminal proceedings. Although a claim under

§ 1983 is appropriate for a challenge to a condition of imprisonment, Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973), it is not appropriate to challenge the validity of a

conviction leading to confinement, as plaintiff attempts to do here. In Heck v.

2

2:15-cv-11392-AC-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 20
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner

does not state a cognizable civil rights claim challenging his imprisonment if a ruling on

his claim would necessarily render his continuing confinement invalid, until and unless

the reason for his continued confinement has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged

by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or has been called into question

by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 This

holds true regardless of the relief sought by the plaintiff. Id. at 487-89.

Heck and other Supreme Court cases, when “taken together, indicate that a state

prisoner's § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) – no matter the relief sought

(damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct

leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) – if success in that action would

necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v.

Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005). The underlying basis for the holding in Heck is that

“civil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding

criminal judgments.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486.

Here, if plaintiff were to prevail on his claims regarding his criminal convictions,

his convictions, sentences, and continued confinement would be called into question. 

This is not permissible under Heck. As such, his claims must be dismissed. 

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)

and 1915A(b). The Court also concludes that an appeal from this decision would be

frivolous and cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v.

3

2:15-cv-11392-AC-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 21
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

 S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 23, 2015

Detroit, MI

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of

record on this date, April 23, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Sakne Chami 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

4

2:15-cv-11392-AC-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 22