## 1 

# tl\ EARL BATES, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

# F**~** If:

. 

# .**~** 

# Lf;,D AP/{,'l22. 2009 NANC Y MAYERWHITTINGTON.

### CWJK U.S. DISTRICT

### COtI'J

v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### Civil Action No. 

# 09 U735 DUNN LAMPTON 

### etal., Defendants. 

### ------------------------) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffhas filed an application to proceed informapauperis and apro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint dismissed. Plaintiffis a prisoner confined in a Mississippi state prison Leakesville, Mississippi, serving a life sentence without possibility ofparole imposed by the Pike County Circuit Court, Mississippi, upon conviction for murder. He has filed a damages action for alleged violations of his constitutional rights, seeking more than $10 million against six defendants. In the alternative, the plaintiffseeks reliefin the form ofa reduced sentence for a lesser included offense. The complaints names as defendants the statejudge who presided over his trial and imposed sentence, the clerk ofcourt where he was tried, two prosecutors involved in his criminal trial, his defense counsel, and the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance. The complaint alleges several errors the plaintiffdenominates as constitutional violations that occurred during and after trial, including denial ofa two-phase hearing, a procedurally faulty indictment, denial of properjuryinstructions, alteration ofrecords, leading argument during trial, violation ofhis right 

# 3against self-incrimination, ineffective assistance ofcounsel, denial ofa copy ofhis direct appeal, denial ofleaveto proceed with a writ ofhabeas corpus, and errors in sentencing. CompI. at 2-3,**~~** (d)(1)

- (12). In sum, the plaintiffasserts that his conviction and sentence are unlawful and in violation ofhis constitutional rights. To the extent that this action is one for damages stemming from violations ofthe plaintiffs federal civil rights, it is barred by the rule ofHeck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In that case, the Supreme Court held that in orderto recover damages from allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff [seeking damages for violations ofhis federal civil rights] 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 a determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance ofa writ ofhabeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 

### § 2254. Id at 486-87. To determine whether the Heckbar applies, "the district court must consider whether ajudgment in favor ofthe plaintiffwould necessarily imply the invalidity ofhis conviction or sentence; ifit would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiffcan demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated." Id at 487. Here, the wrongs that plaintiffalleges, ifproved, would render his conviction and sentence invalid. The plaintiffhas not demonstrated that his conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Therefore, under the rule in Heck v. Humphrey, the claims presented in this complaint for damages stemming from violations ofplaintiffs civil rights must be dismissed. To the extent that the plaintiffseeks to reduce the duration ofhis sentence, this matter may be construed as one for habeas review brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A person in custody under sentence imposed by a state court Federal court may seek habeas review in federal

2court only after the exhaustion ofavailable state remedies, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b )(1), and only "inthe district court for the district wherein suchperson is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced [petitioner] and each ofsuch district courts shall have concurrentjurisdictionto entertain the application," 28 U.S.C. 

### § 2241(d). Thus, assuming that the prisoner has exhausted his state remedies, his federal

recourse lies in the United States District Court for the Southern District ofMississippi, not in this court. Because the reliefsought in this action is either barred byHeck v. Humphrey or improperly addressed to this court instead ofthe United States District Court for the Southern District ofMississippi, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. A separate final order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

United States District Judge

3