Finch v. Texas Department of Public Safety

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: September 2, 2022
• Docket: 6:22-cv-00018
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:22-cv-00018 James Finch, Plaintiff, V. Texas Department of Public Safety et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff James Finch, proceeding pro se and forma pauperts, filed this civil-rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Doc. 3. On January 24, 2022, the court found that the complaint raised unrelated issues concerning the constitutionality of the state law un- der which plaintiff was being prosecuted and the conditions of his confinement in the Anderson County Jail. Doc. 6. Accordingly, the court severed plaintiff’s conditions-of-confinement claims into a separate lawsuit. /d. On February 15, 2022, the court stayed proceed- ings in this case pending the outcome of plaintiff’s prosecution, as instructed by Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007) and Lewis □□ Beddingfield, 20 F.3d 123, 124 (5th Cir. 1994), because plaintiff’s claim necessarily impugned the validity of any eventual conviction. Doc. 7. The court reopened the case on July 13, 2022, after plaintiff notified the court that he had been convicted. Doc. 9. On July 14, 2022, the magistrate judge issued a report recom- mending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because plaintiff’s claim conflicts with the validity of his standing conviction. Doc. 10. Plaintiff filed written objections. Doc. 12. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because plaintiff’s claim—that the statute he was con- victed of violating is unconstitutional—would necessarily demon- strate the invalidity of the state’s criminal judgment against him. Plaintiff □□ objection to the report does not address or contradict that finding. To the contrary, plaintiff confirms that he always intended his claim to be a constitutional challenge to a statute and that the remedy he seeks “will, by necessity, rule his conviction invalid.” Doc. 12 at 1-2. That is precisely what Heck and its progeny prohibit. Shipman v. Sowell, 766 F. App’x 20, 27 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Heck forbids a plaintiff who has been convicted of a crime from launching ‘a col- lateral attack on the conviction through the vehicle of a civil suit.’”’). Plaintiff also suggests that severing his unrelated conditions-of- confinement claim has some bearing on this ruling and that his com- plaint should be allowed “to proceed as it was originally intended.” Doc. 12 at 1. But plaintiffs unrelated claims were properly severed pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreo- ver, plaintiffs challenge to his statute of conviction would be subject to dismissal under Heck regardless of whether it was considered alone or as part of a larger case. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo, and be- ing satisfied that it contains no error, the court overrules plaintiff’s objection and accepts the report’s findings and recommendation. This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. So ordered by the court on September 2, 2022. Conboke, —_ fab BARKER United States District Judge

_2-