Philippeaux v. Garland

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PHILANDER PHILIPPEAUX,

Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 23-810 (JEB) MERRICK GARLAND,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Philander Philippeaux, appearing pro se, is a federal prisoner held at FCI Coleman

Low in Florida. See ECF No. 2 (Compl.) at 1. He alleges that he is falsely imprisoned there and

asks this Court for injunctive relief to secure his release. The Court will dismiss this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires immediate dismissal of a prisoner’s case against

governmental defendants if the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted or is frivolous.

Plaintiff’s Complaint arises from his jury convictions in the U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of Florida for counts related to drug trafficking. See Phlilippeaux v. United

States, 2020 WL 1325408, at *1–*3 (S.D. Fl. Jan. 7, 2020). He brings this action against the

Attorney General, Merrick Garland, alleging myriad fantastical claims, including that a grand jury

failed to actually issue an indictment against him, that he is falsely imprisoned, and that he was

subject to malicious prosecution in the course of an alleged coverup to protect members of the

U.S. Attorney’s office. See Compl. at 1–3. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to

release him from his allegedly false imprisonment and to acknowledge that the grand jury never

issued an indictment against him. Id. at 4.

1 In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994), the Supreme Court held that when a

successful challenge to a criminal conviction would necessarily imply the invalidity of the

conviction or sentence, the plaintiff cannot bring a civil action for damages without first

invalidating the conviction through a sanctioned proceeding. The D.C. Circuit clarified that

Heck also applies to lawsuits, such as this, for equitable relief. Harris v. Fulwood, 611 Fed.

App’x 1, 2 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82

(2005)). Because Plaintiff’s success on the current Complaint would raise serious questions

about the validity of his convictions, his claims “are not cognizable unless and until he meets the

requirements of Heck.” Id. Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

/s/ James E. Boasberg JAMES E. BOASBERG Chief Judge Date: April 3, 2023