United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terence Steven Bryant is presently confined at the Central
Michigan Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan.
Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint challenging
his confinement. Plaintiff is proceeding without prepayment
of the filing fee in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1). The Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),  because
Plaintiff's claims are barred by Heck v.
Humprhey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
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 Atlantic 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)). The notice pleading standard requires more than the
bare assertion of legal conclusions or “an unadorned,
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. at 1949
(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. §
complaint concerns his 2000 convictions for kidnapping and
assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder
for which he is serving terms of four to twenty years'
imprisonment and eighteen to thirty years' imprisonment.
Plaintiff seeks immediate release from incarceration on the
grounds that the evidence does not support his kidnapping
conviction and that his mental illness explains the conduct
underlying his convictions.
under § 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 release from continued custody. This claim is not
properly filed under § 1983.
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is
Court finds an appeal in this case would be frivolous and not
taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
Therefore, Plaintiff is not certified to pursue an appeal
from this judgment in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3). Nevertheless, should Plaintiff decide to
file a notice of appeal, he may seek leave from the Court of
Appeals to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(5).
 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) provides,
in pertinent ...