UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

LARRY D. BEST, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 1:16-CV-311 RL 

vs. )

)

NATHAN SPRINGER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the “Verified Civil

Complaint and Jury Demand,” filed by Larry D. Best, Jr., a pro se

prisoner, on August 25, 2016. (DE #1.) For the reasons set forth

below, the Court: (1) DISMISSES this complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

(2) GRANTS Larry D. Best, Jr. until December 6, 2016, to file an

amended complaint; and (3) CAUTIONS Larry D. Best, Jr., that if he

does not respond by that deadline, this case will be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

Here, Larry D. Best, Jr., was convicted of one count of

dealing methamphetamine and one count of conspiracy to deal

methamphetamine in the Jay Circuit Court. (DE #1 at 8.) Best

alleges City of Portland Police Officers, Nathan Springer and

Judson Wickey, withheld exculpatory evidence concerning another

suspect who may have been guilty of the crime for which Best was

convicted. This, Best claims, denied him due process during his

-1-
criminal trial. Best brings both state and federal claims against

Officer Springer and Officer Wickey for their actions, and he also

brings suit against the City of Portland, Indiana, as their

employer.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review a

prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or

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

or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief. Courts apply the same standard under § 1915A as when

addressing a motion to dismiss under FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir.

2006). Under federal pleading standards,

a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant

is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672 (2009) (quotation marks and

internal citations omitted). Furthermore, “[t]hreadbare recitals

of the elements of the cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678. To survive

dismissal, the plaintiff “must do better than putting a few words

on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest

-2-
that something has happened to her that might be redressed by the

law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010)

(emphasis in original). To state a constitutional claim, the

plaintiff must allege: (1) that the defendant deprived him of a

federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendant acted

under color of state or federal law. See Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

(1971); Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006).

As to his federal claims, Best alleges that he was denied due

process during his trial because exculpatory evidence was withheld

by police officers. This claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), because it rests on a presumption that the

charges against him are invalid. Best cannot pursue a claim for

damages here unless and until the state criminal charges are

terminated in his favor. Id. at 486-87; see also Snodderly v.

R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force, 239 F.3d 892, 898 n.8 (7th

Cir. 2001) (“[W]e have interpreted Heck as barring damage claims

which, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of a

potential conviction on a pending criminal charge.”). Here, there

is no indication from the complaint that Best’s conviction has been

vacated or otherwise invalidated. To the contrary, it is apparent

that he is still incarcerated pursuant to that conviction. Unless

his conviction is vacated or otherwise invalidated, he cannot seek

damages for an alleged wrongful conviction or improper sentence.

-3-
Because Best has not yet stated a plausible federal claim, the

court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his

remaining state law claims at this time. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3);

Capeheart v. Terrell, 695 F.3d 681, 686 (7th Cir. 2012). He may

pursue those claims in state court, if he so chooses.

Based on this complaint, it would be implausible for the court

to conclude that he was not now being held on this conviction.

Thus, Best may not proceed in this court on his claims at this

time. Nevertheless, if his conviction has been set aside somehow,

he needs to file an amended complaint providing that additional

information. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir.

2013). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the court: (1) DISMISSES this

complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (2) GRANTS Larry D. Best, Jr. until

December 6, 2016, to file an amended complaint; and (3) CAUTIONS

Larry D. Best, Jr., that if he does not respond by that deadline,

this case will be dismissed.

DATED: November 2, 2016 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

-4-