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.

Madden v. Jenkins

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Chattanooga

April 7, 2017

RICHMOND MADDEN, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLIE JENKINS, JAMES POPE, III, and THOMAS W GRAHAM, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. RONNIE GREER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pro se plaintiff, Richmond Madden, Sr., brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Charlie Jenkins, James Pope III, and Judge Thomas W. Graham. The Court entered an order of deficiency on December 13, 2016 due to Plaintiff's failure to pay the required filing fee or submit the necessary documents to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees [Doc. 3]. In compliance with the Court order, Plaintiff filed a request with the Tennessee Department of Correction requesting a print out of his account history [Doc. 4-1]. In response to his inquiry, Plaintiff was provided with a Trust Fund Account Statement dated November 16, 2016 showing a current balance of $75.00 [Doc. 4-2]. The document provided failed to show the balance for the previous six months as was ordered by this Court. However, in McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), the Sixth Circuit instructed that inmates are not to be penalized due to the recalcitrance of prison officials, and that “a case may not be dismissed when the payment of an assessment has been delayed by prison officials.” Id. at 607-08. Despite the importance of the missing trust account statement, id. at 607 (calling the trust account the “key to the assessment procedure”) because Plaintiff's efforts to obtain it have been unsuccessful, and because he is not at fault for the omission of this document, his case will advance in the typical fashion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED[1].

         I. Screening the Complaint

         Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), district courts must screen prisoner complaints and sua sponte dismiss those that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or are against a defendant who is immune. See, e.g., Benson v. O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014 (6th Cir. 1999).

         In screening this complaint, the Court bears in mind that pro se pleadings filed in civil rights cases must be liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, the pleading must be sufficient “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, ” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), which simply means that the factual content pled by a plaintiff must permit a court “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

         The “facial plausibility” standard does not require “detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. at 678 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The standard articulated in Twombly and Iqbal “governs dismissals for failure to state a claim under [28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A] because the relevant statutory language tracks the language in Rule 12(b)(6).” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010).

         To state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege and show: (1) that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) that the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law. Black v. Barberton Citizens Hosp., 134 F.3d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1998). Both parts of this two-part test must be satisfied to support a claim under § 1983. See Christy v. Randlett, 932 F.2d 502, 504 (6th Cir. 1991).

         II. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff complains that Detective Charlie Jenkins arrested him “under false pretenses” [Doc. 2 p. 3]. Plaintiff argues that there was no reason for him to be arrested or prosecuted for “possession of meth for resale” [Id.].

         At his trial, Plaintiff claims that both Detective Jenkins and Assistant D.A. James W. Pope III used Plaintiff's race as evidence against him [Id.]. Plaintiff asserts that his constitutional rights were violated when Judge Graham denied his motion for judgment of acquittal even though there “was no way any reasonable human being could have found [him] guilty” for his accused crime [Id.].

         In sum, Plaintiff alleges that on February 16, 2016 his constitutional rights were violated when he was “falsely arrested and jailed”, “extorted through bond”, “prejudicially prosecuted” and “denied [his] freedom by ignorance” [Id.].

         III. Discussion

         Plaintiff's claims that he was “falsely arrested and jailed”, “extorted through bond”, “prejudicially prosecuted” and “denied [his] freedom by ignorance” are barred by Heck because the claims necessarily imply the invalidity of Plaintiff's convictions and sentences. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Under Heck, a plaintiff cannot pursue a § 1983 claim that, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of a previous conviction or sentence, unless the plaintiff can demonstrate favorable termination of the prior conviction or sentence. Id. at 487. The Supreme Court held:

[i]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or call into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for ...

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.