Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20181102_0003308.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-05-31 11:23:55
Document Index: 592925289

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 636', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

S. Creighton Waters; Jason S. Anders; SLED Agent Dowling, Defendants.
The plaintiff, Sammie Gerrick, a self-represented state prisoner, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff files this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). Having reviewed the Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes that it should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, indicates he was convicted of an unspecified offense in the Barnwell County Court of General Sessions. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 7.) The defendants in this matter are the prosecutors in his criminal trial from the South Carolina Attorney General's Office, S. Creighton Waters and Jason S. Anders, and the State Law Enforcement Division investigator in the case, Special Agent Dowling. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff claims that the defendants threatened Plaintiff's wife by telling her they would take her child from her custody if she did not testify against Plaintiff at his state criminal trial and post-conviction relief hearing. (Id. at 5-6, 8.) Thus, Plaintiff alleges his wife was “compelled by the state” to testify against him. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff indicates he brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and the marital communication privilege, seeking damages against the defendants in their individual and official capacities. (Id. at 2-4, 9.)
A legal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows “a party who has been deprived of a federal right under the color of state law to seek relief.” City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 707 (1999). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). In this action, Plaintiff alleges his right to due process pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment was violated, as well as his rights pursuant to the martial communication privilege, due to the State's threat against his wife that compelled her testimony against him.
The court finds this action should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to allege a recognizable legal claim. To the extent the defendants' purported threat against Plaintiff's wife raises a matter of constitutional import, the injury to Plaintiff, if any, would arguably manifest itself as a procedural violation in Plaintiff's state criminal trial. However, such a claim would be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, the United States Supreme Court held that a state prisoner's claim for damages is not cognizable under § 1983 where success of the action would implicitly question the validity of the conviction or duration of the sentence, unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has been previously invalidated. IcL at 487; see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) ("[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."). Here, Plaintiff has provided no factual allegations to show that he successfully challenged his conviction. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff raises a cognizable claim that the defendants' purported threat against his wife violated his rights in his state criminal trial, such a claim would be barred at this time by the holding in Heck.
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and ...