Brannen v. Smith

S.D. Georgia

Brannen v. Smith

DecidedJune 27, 2022

Docket1:22-cv-00053

StatusUnknown

This text of Brannen v. Smith (Brannen v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brannen v. Smith, (S.D. Ga. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION LAWRENCE ANTHONY BRANNEN, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) CV 122-053 WILLIAM L. SMITH, Defendant.

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 16.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the case without prejudice because Plaintiff provided dishonest information about his filing history. (Doc. no. 14.) Plaintiff concedes he filed the undisclosed case identified by the Magistrate Judge, (doc. no. 16, p. 3), and nothing in the objections describing Plaintiffs interpretation of the complaint form changes the conclusion the case is due to be dismissed. Plaintiff starts by arguing this case was filed to challenge an allegedly unlawful seizure, not as a challenge to his conditions of confinement. (Id. at 1-2.) The Magistrate Judge did not recommend dismissal based on the type of claim in the current case. Rather, he recommended dismissal based on the failure to disclose a prior case, Brannen_v. Handshumaker, CV 610-083 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 1, 2010). Plaintiff goes on to assert he was not

required to identify the prior case because, similar to the instant case, he was challenging the search and seizure that led to his conviction for drug possession, which he did not believe qualified as a “condition of imprisonment” as listed on the complaint form. (Doc. no. 16, p. 2.) However, examination of the complaint in Handshumaker reveals that in addition to challenging a search and seizure, he alleged he had been subject to crue] and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and that his incarceration had caused him emotional distress. CV 610-083, doc. no. 1, p. 6. The affidavit submitted with the complaint also alleged Plaintiff encountered drug abuse while incarcerated, which caused him stress and mental anxiety. Id., doc. no. 3, p. 2. Thus, as the Magistrate Judge concluded, Plaintiff's prior, undisclosed case did raise challenges regarding conditions of imprisonment that flowed from an allegedly improper search and seizure. However, even if the Court were to presume Plaintiffs failure to disclose his prior case was not a dishonest representation of his prior filing history of a case related to conditions of imprisonment, the case is due to be dismissed for another reason. As the Magistrate Judge pointed out, Plaintiff cannot use a § 1983 case to challenge the validity of his current confinement, a challenge which is the province of habeas corpus. (Doc. no. 14, p. 5 & n.1 (citing Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam)). Indeed, Plaintiff contends Defendant, the investigator who arrested Plaintiff, should compensate him if he is not convicted, to include compensation for each day Plaintiff is “incarcerated for baseless arson accusations.” (Doc. no. 13, p. 16.) Plaintiff's case fits well within the parameters of Heck Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994), which prohibits a §1983 claim for damages based on

claims of an “allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed or otherwise terminated in Plaintiff's favor. See also Thompson v. Clark 142 S. Ct. 1332, 1335 (U.S. Apr. 4, 2022) (explaining favorable termination rule). Indeed, at this point, while his underlying state case is pending,' Plaintiff cannot show actual compensable injury, as he appears to concede by pinning his requested relief to a trial outcome that would result in his release, and it further appears he has the opportunity to challenge his allegedly unlawful arrest in his ongoing state criminal proceedings. See Doby v. Strength, 758 F.2d 1405, 1405-06 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (ordering abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), where plaintiff raised Fourth Amendment claim for damages under § 1983 while state criminal proceedings ongoing); see also Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 133 (2004) (agreeing federal courts should not intervene in ongoing state criminal proceedings where there is ample opportunity to raise constitutional challenges in state court). Finally, to the extent Plaintiff's allegations could be liberally construed as raising a malicious prosecution claim for arresting Plaintiff when he refused to cooperate during voluntary questioning by Defendant, that, too, fails.2, An essential element of such a claim is that the underlying criminal proceedings terminate in Plaintiff's favor. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S.

State v. Brannen, Case No. 2020 RCCRO1170 (Richmond Cnty. Sup. Ct. Dec. 1, 2020, 2021), available at https://coc.augustaga.gov (follow “Criminal Search” hyperlink; then search “Brannen, Lawrence” last visited June 24, 2022), attached Ex. A. *Plaintiff alleges, “The charge of arson [was] an intentional and malicious overreach by the defendant who abused his authority as a state employee.” (Doc. no. 13, pp. 13-14.)

384, 392 (2007). As Plaintiff's criminal case is pending, he cannot satisfy an essential element of a malicious prosecution claim. In sum, the Court OVERRULES all of Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, and RELIES on the additional analysis above as further justification for dismissal of the case. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process and because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and CLOSES this civil action. SO ORDERED this 774 day pep. 2022, at Augusta, Georgia. fd pba □□ pai JLRA DAL/AX L, CHYEF JUDGE UNITEB-STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

BRANNEN, JOHN 2020RCCRO1170JLAWRENCE FLYTHE OP|12/1/2020}1/15/2021 ANTHONY Charges Se tees Satie gd “eee te eae ate Pa Neate ts Pf Emel || me 60(C) FIRST. 3/11/2020 3/18/2020 DEGREE ARSON TT ip DEGREE Attorneys nity UCyap mrt

Exhibit A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION LAWRENCE ANTHONY BRANNEN, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) CV 122-053 WILLIAM L. SMITH, Defendant.

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 16.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the case without prejudice because Plaintiff provided dishonest information about his filing history. (Doc. no. 14.) Plaintiff concedes he filed the undisclosed case identified by the Magistrate Judge, (doc. no. 16, p. 3), and nothing in the objections describing Plaintiffs interpretation of the complaint form changes the conclusion the case is due to be dismissed. Plaintiff starts by arguing this case was filed to challenge an allegedly unlawful seizure, not as a challenge to his conditions of confinement. (Id. at 1-2.) The Magistrate Judge did not recommend dismissal based on the type of claim in the current case. Rather, he recommended dismissal based on the failure to disclose a prior case, Brannen_v. Handshumaker, CV 610-083 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 1, 2010). Plaintiff goes on to assert he was not

required to identify the prior case because, similar to the instant case, he was challenging the search and seizure that led to his conviction for drug possession, which he did not believe qualified as a “condition of imprisonment” as listed on the complaint form. (Doc. no. 16, p. 2.) However, examination of the complaint in Handshumaker reveals that in addition to challenging a search and seizure, he alleged he had been subject to crue] and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and that his incarceration had caused him emotional distress. CV 610-083, doc. no. 1, p. 6. The affidavit submitted with the complaint also alleged Plaintiff encountered drug abuse while incarcerated, which caused him stress and mental anxiety. Id., doc. no. 3, p. 2. Thus, as the Magistrate Judge concluded, Plaintiff's prior, undisclosed case did raise challenges regarding conditions of imprisonment that flowed from an allegedly improper search and seizure. However, even if the Court were to presume Plaintiffs failure to disclose his prior case was not a dishonest representation of his prior filing history of a case related to conditions of imprisonment, the case is due to be dismissed for another reason. As the Magistrate Judge pointed out, Plaintiff cannot use a § 1983 case to challenge the validity of his current confinement, a challenge which is the province of habeas corpus. (Doc. no. 14, p. 5 & n.1 (citing Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam)). Indeed, Plaintiff contends Defendant, the investigator who arrested Plaintiff, should compensate him if he is not convicted, to include compensation for each day Plaintiff is “incarcerated for baseless arson accusations.” (Doc. no. 13, p. 16.) Plaintiff's case fits well within the parameters of Heck Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994), which prohibits a §1983 claim for damages based on

claims of an “allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed or otherwise terminated in Plaintiff's favor. See also Thompson v. Clark 142 S. Ct. 1332, 1335 (U.S. Apr. 4, 2022) (explaining favorable termination rule). Indeed, at this point, while his underlying state case is pending,' Plaintiff cannot show actual compensable injury, as he appears to concede by pinning his requested relief to a trial outcome that would result in his release, and it further appears he has the opportunity to challenge his allegedly unlawful arrest in his ongoing state criminal proceedings. See Doby v. Strength, 758 F.2d 1405, 1405-06 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (ordering abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), where plaintiff raised Fourth Amendment claim for damages under § 1983 while state criminal proceedings ongoing); see also Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 133 (2004) (agreeing federal courts should not intervene in ongoing state criminal proceedings where there is ample opportunity to raise constitutional challenges in state court). Finally, to the extent Plaintiff's allegations could be liberally construed as raising a malicious prosecution claim for arresting Plaintiff when he refused to cooperate during voluntary questioning by Defendant, that, too, fails.2, An essential element of such a claim is that the underlying criminal proceedings terminate in Plaintiff's favor. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S.

State v. Brannen, Case No. 2020 RCCRO1170 (Richmond Cnty. Sup. Ct. Dec. 1, 2020, 2021), available at https://coc.augustaga.gov (follow “Criminal Search” hyperlink; then search “Brannen, Lawrence” last visited June 24, 2022), attached Ex. A. *Plaintiff alleges, “The charge of arson [was] an intentional and malicious overreach by the defendant who abused his authority as a state employee.” (Doc. no. 13, pp. 13-14.)

384, 392 (2007). As Plaintiff's criminal case is pending, he cannot satisfy an essential element of a malicious prosecution claim. In sum, the Court OVERRULES all of Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, and RELIES on the additional analysis above as further justification for dismissal of the case. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process and because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and CLOSES this civil action. SO ORDERED this 774 day pep. 2022, at Augusta, Georgia. fd pba □□ pai JLRA DAL/AX L, CHYEF JUDGE UNITEB-STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

BRANNEN, JOHN 2020RCCRO1170JLAWRENCE FLYTHE OP|12/1/2020}1/15/2021 ANTHONY Charges Se tees Satie gd “eee te eae ate Pa Neate ts Pf Emel || me 60(C) FIRST. 3/11/2020 3/18/2020 DEGREE ARSON TT ip DEGREE Attorneys nity UCyap mrt

Exhibit A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brannen v. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brannen-v-smith-gasd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack