Moses v. United States of America

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMarch 19, 2013
DocketCivil Action No. 2013-0072
StatusPublished

This text of Moses v. United States of America (Moses v. 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
Moses v. United States of America, (D.D.C. 2013).

Opinion

FILED

MAR l 9 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT cl k _ _ F<>RTHEDISTRI@T<>F<:<>LHMBIA c.,::t§:‘.;?t.,%'z‘:;::t:§:'e:z':::.::ia

Richard Earl Moses, Jr., ) )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 13-0072 (UNA)

United States of America et al., ) )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of the plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 5A (requiring dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted).

The plaintiff is a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Ray Brook, New York. He sues the United States of America, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearrns and Explosives for false arrest, false imprisonment, and "substantial rights violations," stemming from his conviction. Compl. at l. Plaintiff claims that he has suffered "commercial injury" from his 25-year prison sentence obtained "by fraudulant [sic] means" and demands $125 million in damages. Ia’. at 2.

Since the success of plaintiff s challenge to his conviction and sentence based on the asserted grounds would necessarily void his conviction, plaintiff cannot recover monetary damages in a civil action without first showing that he has invalidated the conviction 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). Plaintiff has made no such

showing. Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum

Opinion. _`

z f id . 3 "> "t \

at t / /

_,' tr L/‘ ~_;¢.;t»./;'/)i /2\ United States District Judge

Date: March l ~’ ,2013 '

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)
Moses v. United States of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moses-v-united-states-of-america-dcd-2013.