United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
RICHARD A. DAVIDSON, Plaintiff,
STATE OF OHIO, et al., Defendants.
L. Litkovitz Magistrate Judge
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TIMOTHY S. BLACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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
1. Plaintiff's objections to the Report and
Recommendations (Docs. 6, 9) are OVERRULED;
2. The Report and Recommendations (Docs. 4, 8) are
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
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.