United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northwestern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The
magistrate judge entered a report on October 31, 2013,
recommending that plaintiff Ricky Walter Denton's failure
to train or supervise claim against the Acting Sheriff of
Colbert County be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1) and/or (2). (Doc. 27). The magistrate judge
further recommended that all claims against Defendant Sgt.
Tim Vanderford be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1) and/or (2), with the exception of the claim that
Vanderford violated plaintiff's First Amendment
constitutional rights when he opened and allowed others to
read plaintiff's outgoing non-legal mail. (Id.).
Plaintiff
filed a “Response and Objections” to the report
and recommendation on November 8, 2013. (Doc. 28). Plaintiff
was ordered on October 18, 2014, to show cause why the claims
against defendants Vanderford and the Colbert County Sheriff
were not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
(Doc. 29 (citing Ricky Denton v. Sheriff of Colbert
Cnty., et. al., CV-2010-213)). Plaintiff filed
a response to the order to show cause on October 22, 2014.
(Doc. 30).
I.
Defendant Vanderford - False Identification, Fabricated
Evidence, Perjury and Witness Intimidation Claims
The
magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the above-listed
claims against defendant Vanderford because plaintiff's
bank robbery conviction has not been reversed or otherwise
invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Doc. 27,
at 6) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
486-87 (1994) (holding that “in order to recover
damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment . . ., a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that
the conviction or sentence has been reversed, . . .expunged,
. . . or declared invalid”)). In his objections,
plaintiff “concedes” his 2011 bank robbery
conviction has not been invalidated, and therefore his claims
against defendant Vanderford based on false identification,
fabricated evidence, perjury, and witness intimidation are
due to be dismissed. (Doc. 28, at 2, 4). Nonetheless, he
requests the claims be held “in abeyance” until
his attack on that conviction is completed. (Id.).
Plaintiff's request is DENIED.
II.
Defendant Vanderford - Unlawful Arrest Claims and Forgery
Charges Stemming Therefrom
Plaintiff objects to the use of December 19, 2009, the day
defendant Vanderford arrested him, as the statute of
limitations accrual date for the unlawful arrest claims.
(Id. at 1-2). He contends the forgery charges
stemming from those arrests were not dismissed until some two
years later, and the accrual of his claims should be deferred
to that date. (Id.). Plaintiff's objections are
OVERRULED.
The
accrual of a claim “occurs . . . . when ‘the
plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief.'”
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007) (quoting
Bay Area Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v.
Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U.S. 192, 201 (1997)). A
plaintiff can “file[] suit as soon as the allegedly
unlawful arrest occur[s], subjecting him to the harm of
involuntary detention, so the statute of limitations would
normally commence to run from that date.” Id.
The Supreme Court has expressly rejected deferred accrual for
unlawful arrest claims as “impractical.”
Id. at 393. Thus, even if it is unknown
“whether a prosecution will be brought” and an
“anticipated future conviction never occurs, because of
acquittal or dismissal[, ]” the accrual date,
i.e. the date of arrest, cannot be deferred.
Id. Instead, a district court can “stay the
civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a
criminal case is ended.” Id. at 393-94.
In a
related matter, and as a result of being charged with
forgery, plaintiff's probation for another conviction and
sentence was revoked. He has neither alleged nor shown that
the revocation has been reversed. Thus, to the extent he is
arguing that the unlawful arrests and bogus forgery charges
undermine the validity of his probation revocation, that
claim is due to be dismissed under the auspices of Heck
v. Humphrey. See Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d
175, 177 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that the Heck
principle is applicable to probation and parole revocation
proceedings).
Plaintiff
has not alleged a claim of malicious prosecution against
defendant Vanderford in connection with the dismissal of the
forgery charges that arose from his December 2009 arrest.
Even if he had, or if his allegations are construed as such,
that claim, as well as all other potential claims pertaining
to the December 2009 arrest, are barred pursuant to the
doctrine of res judicata. See infra,
Section IV.
III.
Colbert County Sheriff - Failure to Train or
Supervise
The
magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the failure to
train or supervise claims against the Colbert County Sheriff
because plaintiff's allegations displayed an attempt to
hold the Sheriff liable under a respondeat superior
theory, which is unavailable in Section 1983 cases. (Doc. 27,
at 8). Plaintiff argues the Sheriff should not be dismissed
because “he failed to supervise Vanderford and
implemented a policy that allowed” Vanderford's
actions; namely, exploitation of his private mail in
violation of his First and Fourth Amendment constitutional
rights. (Doc. 28, at 4). He asserts the Sheriff's
supervision of Vanderford was “so relax (sic) it
allowed Vanderford to act in such a manner, ” and
“the Sheriff's policy governing the hand[l]ing of
inmate mail was non existen[t].” (Id.).
Plaintiff's
objections are OVERRULED. He made no factual
allegations and identified no constitutional claim against
the Sheriff in the complaint. Moreover, the allegations in
his objections are insufficient to state a claim against the
Sheriff. See Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d
553, 556-57 (11th Cir. 1984) (conclusory and general
assertions are not sufficient to state a claim upon which
relief under § 1983 can be granted). Even if the
allegations were sufficient, this claim is barred pursuant to
res judicata principles. See
infra, Section IV.
IV.
Vanderford - Opening and Allowing Others to Read the
Plaintiff's Non-legal Mail
The
magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff's claim
regarding Vanderford's alleged violation of his First
Amendment rights when he opened and allowed others to read
plaintiff's outgoing non-legal mail be referred for
further ...