Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

GARY WILLIAMS BLACK, #766492, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1578-L

§

BILL HILL, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This is a pro se civil rights action brought by inmate Plaintiff Gary Williams Black

(“Plaintiff”), who has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b), and an order of the court in implementation thereof, the case was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Wm. F. Sanderson, Jr., for review and submission of proposed findings of fact and

recommendation for disposition. On December 12, 2005, the Findings, Conclusions and

Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge (the “Report”) were filed, to which

Plaintiff filed objections. 

After an independent review of the pleadings, file, record, applicable law, the magistrate

judge’s findings and conclusions, and consideration of Plaintiff’s Objections, the court determines

that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and hereby accepts them as

those of the court. 

I. Discussion

In this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff alleges that he was

unlawfully indicted and convicted for child endangerment in Dallas County Cause No. F05-35160.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01578-L Document 13 Filed 02/28/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 52
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2

He seeks monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as release from prison. The magistrate

judge, after screening the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, recommended that the court dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and

1915(e)(2)(B). Specifically, the magistrate judge found that Plaintiff had failed to satisfy the

requirements of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), a prerequisite to bringing a suit

under § 1983 that implicates the validity of Plaintiff’s conviction. See Report at 3 (citing Heck, 512

U.S. at 487) (“The Heck court unequivocally held that unless an authorized tribunal or executive

body has overturned or otherwise invalidated the plaintiff’s confinement, his claim is not

congnizable under [section] 1983.”). As Plaintiff failed to satisfy any of the Heck conditions, the

magistrate judge found that, under applicable law, Plaintiff’s § 1983 complaint seeking monetary,

declaratory and injunctive relief should be dismissed without prejudice. See id. at 4 (and cases cited

therein). With regard to his request for release from prison, the magistrate judge found that such a

request is only cognizable in a habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See id. at

2 n.1.

Plaintiff has filed objections which the court has reviewed. Plaintiff’s objections are nothing

more that a recitation of the requirements of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights,

in particular. He requests that the court consider the constitutional rights to equal protection and due

process. Further, he reminds the court of the need to construe liberally the pleadings of a pro se

plaintiff. He does not assert that he has met any of the Heck requirements.

The court overrules Plaintiff’s objections. As the magistrate judge correctly found, Plaintiff

has failed to satisfy the Heck requirements. Accordingly, his § 1983 complaint should be dismissed

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01578-L Document 13 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 53
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3

without prejudice to it being reasserted should the Heck requirements be met. See Heck, 512 U.S.

at 487. 

II. Conclusion

For the reasons herein stated, the court overrules Plaintiff’s Objections to the Findings,

Conclusions and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. The court determines

that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of

the court. Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff’s § 1983 complaint as

frivolous.

A final judgment dismissing this case in accordance with the foregoing will issue by separate

document. 

It is so ordered this 28th day of February, 2006.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01578-L Document 13 Filed 02/28/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 54