Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davidson v. State

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

August 28, 2019

RICHARD A. DAVIDSON, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF OHIO, et al., Defendants.

          Karen L. Litkovitz Magistrate Judge

          ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          TIMOTHY S. BLACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This civil case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the relevant pleading and, on December 10, 2018 and December 21, 2018, submitted two Report and Recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice (Doc. 4) and that Plaintiff's motions to amend his complaint be denied (Doc. 8). Plaintiff filed objections to both Report and Recommendations on December 18, 2018 and December 28, 2018, respectively. (Docs. 6, 9).

         Plaintiff's complaint seeks to invalidate the Ohio criminal statute under which Plaintiff was convicted in state court. (Doc. 3). The complaint specifically states that Plaintiff seeks “damages in any manner this Court deems appropriate in the furtherance of justice, as the Plaintiff has shown serious harm by being unlawfully convicted of a void statute.” (Id. at 11). However, as the Magistrate Judge correctly states, Plaintiff cannot challenge the validity of the statute without necessarily invalidating his underlying criminal conviction. (Doc. 4). Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to such relief, pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), unless his criminal conviction is invalidated first. And Plaintiff's subsequent requests to amend his complaint and for a declaratory judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 57 are not proper and would not resolve the defects in this case. (Doc. 8).[1] Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge his criminal conviction, he must do so by way of a habeas petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

         Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendations allege that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly interprets the relief Plaintiff seeks. The Court disagrees. Thus, Plaintiff's objections serve only to reassert the claims raised in his pleadings, none of which are well-taken. (Docs. 6, 9).[2]

         As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court determines that the Report and Recommendations (Docs. 4, 8) should be, and are hereby, adopted in their entirety. Accordingly:

1. Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendations (Docs. 6, 9) are OVERRULED;
2. The Report and Recommendations (Docs. 4, 8) are ADOPTED;
3. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 3) is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1);
4. Plaintiff's motions to amend the complaint (Docs. 5, 7) are hereby DENIED;
5. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court; and
6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, this Court DENIES Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

         IT ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.