Leffebre v. Kent

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: July 17, 2009
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2009-1328
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

JUL 1 7 2009 UNITED sTATEs 1)1sTR1cT couRT clerk, u.s. oascricr and FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA B°""'“P*CV C°“'*S ANDRE DAvID LEFFEBRE, ) Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. SAMUEL B. KENT, et al., § Defendants. § MEMoRANDIJM oP1N1oN

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’ s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se comp1aint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for the reasons stated below.

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner who currently is incarcerated at the Administrative Maximum facility in Florence, Colorado. Generally, he alleges that the indictment against him "failed to carry a Grand Jury Mans/foremans [sic] signature," Compl. at 4, that the defendants conspired "to obtain a [sic] illegal and wrongful conviction" against him, ia'. at 6, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas had no jurisdiction over his person or the criminal matter, id. at ll, and that his current incarceration is unlawful, id. at 7. For these alleged violations of his rights under the United States Constitution, plaintiff demands "a sum certain of $777,000,000." Id. at 12-13.

Plaintiff may be awarded damages only if he first establishes that his conviction 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 of a writ of habeas corpus." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); accord Whz'te v. Bowie, 194 F.3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (table). P1aintiff does not satisfy this prerequisite and therefore his complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For these reasons, the Court will dismiss the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A(b)(l). See, e.g., Lejj”ebre v. Cothren, No. G-06-l50, 2007 WL 4l98554, at *l (S.D.Tex. Nov. 26, 2007) (dismissing suit because "a judgment in favor of Plaintiff awarding him damages for defendant Cothren’s alleged omission implies the invalidity of Plaintift’s conviction," and thus is barred under Heck); Leffebre v. Carter, No. G-06-l49, 2007 WL 4206180, at *l (S.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2007) (same); Lejj’ebre v. United States Fed. Corp., No. l:O7-CV-743, 2007 WL 3389994, at *l (E.D. Tex. Nov. l4, 2007) (adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to dismiss suit seeking to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render plaintiff’s imprisonment invalid, under Heck).

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately on this same

United States District iiudge

date.

Date: aa