Redmond v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: January 12, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-0042
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ ) JESSE R. REDMOND, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-0042 (UNA) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on initial review of plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, his pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and motion for appointment of

counsel, ECF No. 3. The Court grants plaintiff in forma pauperis status, denies the motion for

appointment of counsel and, for the reasons discussed below, dismisses the complaint.

The Court construes the complaint as one bringing a claim under the Federal Tort Claims

Act (“FTCA”). Plaintiff alleges that a government witness provided false testimony at trial,

leading to plaintiff’s conviction in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and imposition

of a sentence to 15 years to life imprisonment. For alleged violations of the Fourth and Fifth

Amendments to the United States Constitution, and for the mental and emotional distress he has

suffered, plaintiff demands compensatory damages of $10 million and punitive damages of $50

million.

The Supreme Court instructs:

1 [I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid . . . plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). Here, plaintiff does not demonstrate that his

conviction or sentence has been reversed or otherwise invalidated, and, therefore, his claim for

damages fails. See West v. Huvelle, No. 18-CV-2443, 2019 WL 6498818, at *6 n.1 (D.D.C. Dec.

3, 2019) (concluding that, because guilty plea on which criminal conviction and sentence were

based had not been declared invalid, plaintiff fails to state claim for damages under FTCA); Hall

v. Admin. Office of U.S. Courts, 496 F. Supp. 2d 203, 208 (D.D.C. 2007) (“Absent a showing

that plaintiff’s conviction or sentence has been overturned or declared invalid, then, he cannot

recover damages under the FTCA.”); see also Parris v. United States, 45 F.3d 383, 385 (10th

Cir.) (reasoning that “[t]he FTCA like [42 U.S.C.] § 1983, creates liability for certain torts

committed by government officials. As such, we conclude the same common law principles that

informed the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck should inform the decision of whether an action

under the FTCA is cognizable when it calls into question the validity of a prior conviction.”),

cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1120 (1995).

The Court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1). An Order is issued separately.

DATE: January 12, 2023 /s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge