Braxton v. the United States of America

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJune 4, 2009
DocketCivil Action No. 2009-1036
StatusPublished

This text of Braxton v. the United States of America (Braxton v. the United States of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Braxton v. the United States of America, (D.D.C. 2009).

Opinion

FILED JUN - 4 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District and FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bankruptcy Courts

DUAN S. BRAXTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 09 1036 UNITED STATES, et at., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiffs application to proceed in

forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will

be dismissed.

Plaintiff is an inmate who currently is incarcerated at the Clayton County Prison in

Lovejoy, Georgia. He alleges that he "is ... being held in violation of penal code 18, Chapter

77, of peonage, slavery and trafficking persons," Compl. at 1, and that he "is being transferred

interstate for the purpose of ransom and reward," id. at 2. Among other relief, he demands "a

restraining order against peonage, slavery and trafficking persons" and an award "for reparations

for the amount of $2,000,000.00 after taxes." Id. at 2.

The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.c. § 1915A(b)(1).

Insofar as plaintiff demands damages as compensation for the fact or duration of his

confinement, his claim must fail. Plaintiff must first establish that his confinement has been

invalidated by "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by executive order, declar[ation of

invalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or ... a federal court's • issuance ofa writ of habeas corpus." Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); accord

White v. Bowie, 194 F.3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (table). Plaintiff has not satisfied the prerequisite

and therefore fails to state a claim for damages. He may pursue a challenge to the confinement

itself in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this

same date.

DATE: :<.r~ 2WJ

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

Related

Heck v. Humphrey
512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Braxton v. the United States of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braxton-v-the-united-states-of-america-dcd-2009.