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.

Jones v. Dove

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division

November 5, 2018

OUNCRE D. JONES, Plaintiff
v.
MICKY DOVE, ET AL., Defendants

          DEE D. DRELL JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge

         Before the Court is a civil rights complaint (28 U.S.C. § 1983) filed by pro se Plaintiff Ouncre D. Jones (“Jones”). Jones was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7). Jones is a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Natchitoches Parish Detention Center. Jones alleges that he was subjected to excessive force during his arrest. He names as Defendants Natchitoches Police Chief Micky Dove and Officer C. Dranquet.

         Because Jones's criminal charges remain pending in state court, his § 1983 complaint should be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

         I. Background

         Jones states that he was arrested by the Natchitoches Police Department following a chase. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Officer Dranquet allegedly placed Jones in a headlock and punched Jones in the head. When another officer arrived, Officer Dranquet claimed that Jones had punched him in the eye. (Doc. 1, p. 3).

         Jones was ordered to amend his complaint to state whether he was charged with any offenses as a result of the altercation with Officer Dranquet. In response, Jones provides that he was charged with hit and run, resisting and officer, aggravated flight, resisting a police officer with force or violence, simple criminal damage to property, battery of a police officer, reckless operation of a vehicle, shoplifting, and numerous traffic violations. According to Jones, several of the charges are pending.

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Jones's complaint is subject to screening under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

         Jones is a prisoner who has been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915A provides for the preliminary screening of lawsuits filed by prisoners seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Rosborough v. Mgmt. and Training Corp., 350 F.3d 459, 461 (5th Cir. 2003). Because Jones is proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint is also subject to screening under § 1915(e)(2). Both §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, or any portion thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

         B. Jones's complaint should be stayed.

         Jones claims that he was subjected to excessive force during his arrest. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), the Supreme Court held that “a plaintiff who seeks to recover damages under § 1983 for actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid must first prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or otherwise called into question.” Id. A § 1983 claim falls under the rule of Heck only when a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of a subsequent conviction or sentence. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007).

         The Heck rule does not apply to pending criminal charges. See id. at 393-94. If a plaintiff files a claim of unlawful arrest before he has been convicted, or files any other claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial, it is within the power of the district court to stay the civil action until the criminal case has ended. See id.

         If Jones is convicted of the charges related to his altercations with the arresting officers, an award of damages would imply the invalidity of the conviction(s). Thus, Jones's claim ...


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.