Court Opinion

ID: 9379173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 21:00:50.353613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:50.424347
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FRANK NUÑEZ GARCIA,                            )
                                               )
                        Plaintiff,             )
                                               )
                v.                             )               Civil Action No. 23-471 (UNA)
                                               )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,              )
                                               )
                        Defendants.            )

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections, alleges

violations of the United States Constitution, the Arizona State Constitution, and assorted Arizona

statutes, and purports to bring this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl. at 1

(page numbers designated by CM/ECF). The complaint is incoherent and fails to allege facts

sufficient to put the Court and Defendants on notice of the nature of Plaintiff’s claims and the

basis for this Court’s jurisdiction.

        At times, it appears that Plaintiff is (or at least might be) challenging his criminal

conviction and sentence and demanding unspecified monetary relief. See generally id. at 11-15.

If so, this claim fails. As the Supreme Court has held:

                [I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
                conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
                whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,
                a § 1983 plaintiff 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
                determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance
                of a writ of habeas corpus.

                                                   1
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–487 (1994); Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340–41

(D.C. Cir. 1996) (applying the Heck rule to Bivens actions). The plaintiff does not allege that his

conviction or sentence has been reversed or otherwise invalidated, and, therefore, his claim for

damages (if, in fact, that is the relief he seeks) fails. See, e.g., Johnson v. Williams, 699 F. Supp.

2d 159, 171 (D.D.C. 2010), aff’d sub nom. Johnson v. Fenty, No. 10-5105, 2010 WL 4340344

(D.C. Cir. Oct. 1, 2010); Jones v. Yanta, No. 07-1172, 2008 WL 2202219, at *1 (D.D.C. May 27,

2008).

         In any event, the complaint fails to set forth a short and plain statement of facts that might

entitle Plaintiff to relief in this Court.

         The Court will, accordingly, grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

(ECF No. 2), deny his motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 3) as moot, and dismiss the

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).

         An Order is issued separately.

                                                               /s/
                                                               RANDOLPH D. MOSS
DATE: March 13, 2023                                           United States District Judge

                                                   2