Lazirko v. Brooklyn City Hall

Sixth Circuit

Lazirko v. Brooklyn City Hall

53 F. App'x 324

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 10, 2002

DocketNo. 02-3449

StatusPublished

This text of 53 F. App'x 324 (Lazirko v. Brooklyn City Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lazirko v. Brooklyn City Hall, 53 F. App'x 324 (6th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

John Lazirko, an Ohio citizen, appeals pro se a district court order dismissing his civil rights action for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Lazirko filed a complaint in forma pauperis, naming as defendants the cities of Brooklyn and Parma, Ohio, and several city employees, including police officers, a clerk, prosecutors, a dispatcher, and a judge. As best can be construed from the complaint and attached documents, Lazirko was arrested and charged with reckless operation of a motor vehicle, driving on the wrong side of the roadway, and resisting arrest. His car was towed. He disputed several items on the ticket, including the [325]*325arresting officer’s description of the time of day, the weather, and the amount of traffic. He also pointed out that the violation numbers listed for two of the charges were incorrect, and actually pertained to vehicular homicide and a liquor permit regulation. Lazirko alleged that shortly after his arrest he was hospitalized for treatment of osteomyelitis. Three days after his release, he alleged that he was told that if he did not plead guilty to driving on the wrong side of the roadway, he would be sent to jail. He did enter a guilty plea and paid a fine.

The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and this appeal followed. Review of the record in this case shows that the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim, as Lazirko could prove no facts which would entitle him to relief. Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir.1996).

Lazirko’s complaint essentially alleges that he is innocent of the charge to which he entered a guilty plea. Such a complaint is not cognizable, as Lazirko does not allege that he has successfully appealed his conviction in the state courts. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

Accordingly, the dismissal of this complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

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

ORDER

John Lazirko, an Ohio citizen, appeals pro se a district court order dismissing his civil rights action for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Lazirko filed a complaint in forma pauperis, naming as defendants the cities of Brooklyn and Parma, Ohio, and several city employees, including police officers, a clerk, prosecutors, a dispatcher, and a judge. As best can be construed from the complaint and attached documents, Lazirko was arrested and charged with reckless operation of a motor vehicle, driving on the wrong side of the roadway, and resisting arrest. His car was towed. He disputed several items on the ticket, including the [325]*325arresting officer’s description of the time of day, the weather, and the amount of traffic. He also pointed out that the violation numbers listed for two of the charges were incorrect, and actually pertained to vehicular homicide and a liquor permit regulation. Lazirko alleged that shortly after his arrest he was hospitalized for treatment of osteomyelitis. Three days after his release, he alleged that he was told that if he did not plead guilty to driving on the wrong side of the roadway, he would be sent to jail. He did enter a guilty plea and paid a fine.

The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and this appeal followed. Review of the record in this case shows that the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim, as Lazirko could prove no facts which would entitle him to relief. Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir.1996).

Lazirko’s complaint essentially alleges that he is innocent of the charge to which he entered a guilty plea. Such a complaint is not cognizable, as Lazirko does not allege that he has successfully appealed his conviction in the state courts. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

Accordingly, the dismissal of this complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F. App'x 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lazirko-v-brooklyn-city-hall-ca6-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack