United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The
magistrate judge filed a report on April 9, 2019,
recommending that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
the court dismiss this action without prejudice for failing
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 13).
Although the magistrate judge advised the plaintiff of his
right to file specific written objections within fourteen
days, the court has not received any objections.
Having
carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the
materials in the court file, including the report and
recommendation, the court MODIFIES the
magistrate judge's report, but ACCEPTS
the recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff Cordell Wade's
complaint without prejudice.
First,
the magistrate judge recommended dismissing Mr. Wade's
due process claims as barred by the statute of limitations.
(Doc. 13 at 4-5). But the statute of limitations is an
affirmative defense and, as a result, a “dismissal on
statute of limitations grounds is appropriate only if it is
apparent from the face of the complaint that the claim is
time-barred.” Boyd v. Warden, Holman Corr.
Facility, 856 F.3d 853, 872 (11th Cir. 2017). In this
case, the court cannot tell from the face of the complaint
when the statute of limitations began running because the
complaint does not state when Mr. Wade became aware of the
defendants' alleged wrongful acts. See Chappell v.
Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1283 (11th Cir. 2003). Without an
accrual date, the court cannot tell when the statute of
limitations expired. Accordingly, the court will not dismiss
Mr. Wade's due process claims as barred by the statute of
limitations.
However,
the court agrees with the magistrate judge that Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), bars Mr.
Wade's due process claims. (See Doc. 13 at 5-6).
Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS that
recommendation and WILL DISMISS the due
process claims as barred by the Heck doctrine.
Second,
the magistrate judge recommended dismissing Mr. Wade's
claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) on
the basis that Brady claims must be raised in a 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, and
Mr. Wade's complaint does not establish that he exhausted
his state court remedies, which is a prerequisite to habeas
relief under § 2254. (Doc. 13 at 7). The court agrees
that it must dismiss Mr. Wade's Brady claim, but
modifies the report and recommendation to clarify the basis
for that dismissal.
The
Supreme Court has held that district courts “may not
recharacterize a pro se litigant's motion as a
request for relief under [28 U.S.C.] § 2255-unless the
court first warns the pro se litigant about the
consequences of the recharacterization, thereby giving the
litigant an opportunity to contest the recharacterization, or
to withdraw or amend the motion.” Castro v. United
States, 540 U.S. 375, 382 (2003). The Eleventh Circuit
has held that this rule also applies to filings
recharacterized as § 2254 petitions. Ponton v.
Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 891 F.3d 950, 953
n.3 (11th Cir. 2018). In this case, the magistrate judge did
not comply with the Castro requirements for
recharacterizing a filing as a § 2254 petition, so the
court cannot dismiss Mr. Wade's Brady claim
based on the requirements set out in § 2254.
But the
court concludes that it must dismiss Mr. Wade's
Brady claim because the Heck doctrine bars
him from raising that claim under § 1983. As the Supreme
Court has explained:
A Brady claim, when successful postconviction,
necessarily yields evidence undermining a conviction:
Brady evidence is, by definition, always favorable
to the defendant and material to his guilt or punishment. . .
. Accordingly, Brady claims have ranked within the
traditional core of habeas corpus and outside the province of
§ 1983.
Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 536 (2011).
Because Mr. Wade cannot assert a Brady claim without
necessarily undermining his conviction, such a claim is not
cognizable under § 1983. See Heck, 512 U.S. at
483. Accordingly, the court WILL DISMISS Mr.
Wade's Brady claim.
The
court ACCEPTS the magistrate judge's
report and ADOPTS his recommendations in all
other respects. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), the court WILL DISMISS this
action WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failing to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The
court will enter a separate order consistent with this
opinion.
DONE
...