United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JEFFREY J. HELMICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se plaintiff Larry Taylor, a state prisoner incarcerated
in the Marion Correctional Institution, has filed this in
forma pauperis action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Norwalk Municipal Court Judge Eric Weisenburger, the
Norwalk Law Director and Court Clerk of Courts, as well as
Common Pleas Judges James Conway, Clerk of Courts Susan
Kagel, and Prosecutor Russell Leffler. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 3.)
complaint does not set forth allegations against each of the
defendants that are intelligible to the court, but it appears
he contends the defendants violated his constitutional right
of access to the courts, for which he seeks some type of
relief under § 1983, in connection with criminal
proceedings against him that “started in . .
.1995.” (See Doc. No. 1. at 3.) Judging by the
defendants he names, it appears he is referring to his
criminal conviction in the Huron County Court of Common
Pleas, in which he pled no contest to and was found guilty of
a charge of burglary. See State v. Taylor, No.
H-95-062, 1996 WL 532331, at *1 (Ohio Ct. App. Sept. 20,
1996). He was also tried and convicted in the Erie County
Court of Common Pleas in 1995 on charges of kidnapping, rape,
felonious sexual penetration, and felonious assault. See
State v. Taylor, No. E-95-066, 1996 WL 660669, at *1
(Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 15, 1996).
plaintiff is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, a
court is required to construe his complaint indulgently and
hold it to a less stringent standard than a formal pleading
drafted by a lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972); Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708,
715 (6th Cir. 1999). Nonetheless, even pro se
plaintiffs must satisfy basic pleading requirements, and
courts are not required to conjure allegations on their
behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App'x 579,
580 (6th Cir. 2001).
district courts are expressly required, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, to screen all in forma
pauperis actions, and any action in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity or an officer or
employee of a governmental entity, and to dismiss before
service any such action that the court determines is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See Hill v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). In order
to avoid a dismissal for failure to state a claim, a
complaint must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id.
plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed pursuant to
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A because it fails to
state any plausible claim under § 1983 on which relief
may be granted.
the plaintiff purports to assert a civil rights claim or
claims that would call into question the validity of one or
more of his state criminal convictions. Under the Supreme
Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994), a prisoner may not raise claims in a civil rights
action if a judgment on the merits of those claims would
affect the validity of a criminal conviction unless and until
the conviction has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged
by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or
called into question by a federal court's issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus. Until such time, a cause of
action under § 1983 is not cognizable. Id. at
486-87. See also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641,
646 (1997). This holding in Heck applies whether a
plaintiff seeks monetary, injunctive, or declaratory relief.
Wilson v. Kinkela, No. 97-4035, 1998 WL 246401, at
*1 (6th Cir. May 5, 1998). The plaintiff does not
set forth allegations indicating that any of his state
convictions have been invalidated or set aside in any of the
ways articulated in Heck. Accordingly, he has not
alleged a cognizable claim under § 1983.
the plaintiff's complaint fails to set forth facts
suggesting that any defendant violated his constitutional
right of access to the courts. No such claim exists unless a
plaintiff alleges that defendants prevented him from filing a
non-frivolous legal claim challenging his conviction.
Clark v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 113 Fed.Appx. 65, 68
(6th Cir. 2004). The plaintiff has not alleged discernible
facts plausibly suggesting any of defendant engaged in
conduct that actually hindered his efforts to pursue a
non-frivolous legal claim challenging any of his convictions.
reasons stated above, the plaintiff's complaint is
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and
1915A. I further certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3), that an ...