Opinion ID: 220603
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Report and Recommendation

Text: Because Mr. Bryner appeared in forma pauperis in the district court, the magistrate judge screened his case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to determine whether his claims should be dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In doing so, he considered the contents -3- of the untimely proposed amended complaint. 2 We shall discuss only those § 1983 claims relevant to this appeal.
The magistrate judge read Mr. Bryner’s proposed amended complaint as alleging that Mr. Bryner’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated when he was denied a fair trial in state court and denied the possibility of a fair trial in federal court by the destruction of evidence, presumably the asserted destruction of a digital tape recording by Deputy Rowley. 3 The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of this claim based on Heck v. Humphrey, on the ground that a federal decision concluding that the destruction of evidence had denied Mr. Bryner a fair trial in state court would necessarily undermine the validity of his state court conviction. 2. Wrongful Arrest, Wrongful Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, and Abuse of Process The magistrate judge read Mr. Bryner’s amended complaint as asserting that the actions taken by the individual defendants (1) involved in his removal and 2 The court found that there were no issues raised in the original complaint that were not raised in the amended complaint as well. 3 Mr. Bryner alleged he had miniature tape recorder in his possession that was running during the incident in question and that, when the recorder was returned to him after his release, there was no recording. Mr. Bryner alleges that Deputy Rowley must have erased the tape after the recorder was taken from Mr. Bryner. -4- arrest at the courthouse April 18, 2007, and (2) involved with the prosecution of the criminal charges that resulted from that arrest, violated his constitutional rights. He asserted that the arrest and his subsequent imprisonment were wrongful, and that his prosecution was malicious and constituted an abuse of legal process. The magistrate judge recommended that all of these claims be dismissed on Heck grounds because they are all “inextricably linked to and would undermine the validity of Plaintiff’s conviction stemming from his April 18, 2007 arrest.” R., Vol. 1 at 201. 3. Excessive Force Mr. Bryner also raised an excessive force claim against Deputy Rowley. He alleged that when he went to a room in the courthouse and tried to file a pleading with one of the judges’ clerks, he was grabbed and pushed by Deputy Rowley, who told him to leave and ordered him not argue with the clerk. The clerk had told Mr. Bryner he would have to go to another floor to file his papers (although allegedly one of the other court employees agreed that he could file them in the room he was in). Mr. Bryner alleges that Deputy Rowley and another deputy lifted him on both shoulders and shoved him. He was then escorted to the first floor but was eventually arrested after he continued to assert that he wanted to file his papers. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be grounded. The magistrate judge concluded that, as Mr. Bryner refused to leave the courthouse and admitted he -5- pushed Deputy Rowley, the facts, as alleged, showed no unconstitutional use of force.