United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
ZARYL G. BUSH, Plaintiff,
STRUTHERS OHIO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER [RESOLVING ECF NOS. 4,
Y. PEARSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is the Amended Complaint of Pro se
Plaintiff Zaryl Bush, a state prisoner, against the Struthers
Ohio Police Department, Detective Jeffrey Lewis, Detective
Raymond Greenwood, and Chief of Police Timothy Rody. ECF No.
4 [Sealed]. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his
civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prior to
his incarceration, and those violations resulted in his
current imprisonment. Id. at PageID #: 32.
reasons that follow, this case is dismissed.
is presently incarcerated at the Lake Erie Correctional
Institution. According to the Amended Complaint, the
“incident” that led to the death of a
fourteen-year-old childoccurred on January 21, 2013.
Id. at PageID #: 33. Bush alleges he became the
target for this crime by the Struthers Police Department
before any evidence was produced, and Defendants conspired to
deprive him of his constitutional rights and impair his
ability to receive a fair trial by conducting an insufficient
investigation. See Id. at PageID #: 33-38.
relief, Bush asks the Court to award him damages in the
amount of thirty-three million dollars. Id. at
PageID #: 39.
Standard of Review
se pleadings are liberally construed by the Court.
Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per
curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
Notwithstanding, the district court is required under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to review all in forma
pauperis complaints and to dismiss before service any
such complaint that the Court determines is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See Hill v. Lappin, 630
F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010). While some latitude must be
extended to pro se plaintiffs with respect to their
pleadings, the Court is not required to conjure unpleaded
facts or construct claims against defendants on behalf of a
pro se plaintiff. See Grinter v. Knight,
532 F.3d 567, 577 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted);
Thomas v. Brennan, 2018 WL 3135939, at *1 (N.D. Ohio
June 26, 2018) (citing Beaudett v. City of Hampton,
775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985) and Erwin v.
Edwards, 22 Fed.Appx. 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001)).
order to withstand scrutiny under §
1915(e)(2)(B), “‘a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71 (holding that the dismissal
standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544 (2007) governs dismissals for failure to state a claim
under § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570)). Thus, a complaint fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted when it lacks
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Id. at 471.
Court finds that the Amended Complaint must be dismissed for
two reasons. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to invalidate or
set aside his state conviction or sentence pursuant to a
§ 1983 civil rights action, he fails to state a
cognizable claim. A habeas corpus proceeding, not a civil
rights action, is the appropriate remedy for a state prisoner
to attack the validity of his conviction or the length of his
sentence. Wright v. Kinneary, 46 Fed.Appx. 250, 252
(6th Cir. 2002) (“Wright's claims are subject to
dismissal to the extent his complaint may be construed as a
direct attack on the validity of his confinement.”)
(citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-90
(1973) (a habeas corpus proceeding, not a civil rights
action, is the appropriate remedy for a state prisoner to
attack the validity of his conviction or length of his
respect to Plaintiff's request for money damages as a
remedy for the alleged constitutional deprivations by
Defendants that led to his conviction and incarceration, this
action is barred by Heck. In Heck, the
Supreme Court held that a plaintiff may not pursue a
§ 1983 damages action arising from an allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or sentence unless and until the
plaintiff shows that the conviction or sentence at issue 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.
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. Even with the benefit of
liberal construction, nothing in the Amended Complaint
suggests that Plaintiff's conviction and sentence have
been called into question or invalidated by any of the means
articulated by Heck. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to
state a cognizable § 1983 claim. See Adams
v. Morris, 90 Fed.Appx. 856, 858 (6th Cir. 2004)
(“Because [plaintiff's] confinement has not been
remedied by any of the procedures listed in Heck,
the district court properly found that his claims are not
cognizable under § 1983.”).
foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff's
motion for appointment of ...