United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
DOMINIC A. CAMPBELL-BEY, Plaintiff,
STATE OF MICHIGAN, MICHIGAN STATE LEGISLATURE, AND RICK SNYDER, Defendant.
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT
H. CLELAND, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the court is Plaintiff Dominic A. Campbell-Bey's
pro se civil rights complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Kinross
Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan. Plaintiff names
three defendants, the State of Michigan, the Michigan State
Legislature, and Governor Rick Snyder. He challenges his
sentence of non-parolable life for first-degree murder. His
claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994), because a judgment on the merits of those claims
would affect the validity of his sentence. Accordingly, the
court summarily dismisses the complaint without prejudice.
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint set
forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” as well as
“a demand for the relief sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2), (3). The purpose of this rule is to “give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) and Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2)). While this notice pleading standard does not
require “detailed” factual allegations,
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, it does require more than
the bare assertion of legal conclusions or “an
accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.'”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
“Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders
‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement.'” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee for this action. Under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”), the court is required to
sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis
complaint before service on a defendant if it determines that
the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Similarly, the court is required to dismiss a
complaint seeking redress against government entities,
officers, and employees that it finds to be frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege
that: (1) she was deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity
secured by the federal Constitution or laws of the United
States, and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person acting
under color of state law. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436
U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978). A pro se civil rights
complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
complaint challenges Plaintiff's sentence. Plaintiff
argues that he should have been sentenced to life with the
possibility of parole and that his non-parolable life
sentence violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
under section 1983 is an appropriate remedy for a state
prisoner challenging a condition of his imprisonment. See
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973). In
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme
Court established that a state prisoner does not state a
cognizable civil rights claim challenging his imprisonment if
a ruling on his claim would necessarily render his continuing
confinement invalid, until and unless the reason for his
continued confinement has been reversed on direct appeal,
called into question by a federal court's issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or
otherwise invalidated. Id. at 486-87. Plaintiff
seeks a declaratory judgment that his current sentence is
unconstitutional. That is, he seeks the invalidation of his
current sentence, a claim properly filed under habeas corpus
not under § 1983. This dismissal is without
reasons set forth above, the court concludes that
Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for which
relief presently may be granted. Accordingly, the complaint
is summarily dismissed without prejudice.
See Hodge v. City of Elyria,
126 F. App'x 222, 223 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that a
case dismissed pursuant to Heck should be dismissed
without prejudice so that plaintiff may re-assert claims if
plaintiff obtains ...