Stuckey v. Knight

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: October 26, 2020
• Docket: CUMcv-20-152
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-20-152 fCT;\"f'::'.' t"'

MANSFIELD STUCKEY, JR.,

Plaintiff

V. ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DANIEL KNIGHT, et al.

Defendant

The matter pending before the court is Defendant Daniel Knight's motion for summary

judgment. Officer Knight is the only remaining defendant in this case. For the following reasons,

the motion is granted.

Factual Background

The relevant facts are as follows.

On June 30, 2016, While patrolling the area of Portland Street in Portland, Maine, Officer

Daniel Knight was approached by an individual who told him that a person was selling drugs on

a nearby street. (Supp.'g S.M.F. l) 1.) Officer Knight identified Stuckey as a person matching the

description offered by the tipster and approached him. (Supp,'g S.M.F. l)l) 3-6.) The exact nature

of the interaction that followed is in dispute, but it is uncontested that Knight placed Stuckey in

handcuffs and searched his person and the surrounding area for drugs. (Supp.'g S.M.F. l)l) 19­

38.) Drugs were found on the scene and Stuckey was arrested for possession and sale of

scheduled drugs. Id. Officer Knight had no further contact with Stuckey following this arrest.

(Supp.'g S.M.F. l) 46.)

1 Stuckey brings this action pro se, alleging violations of 42 U .S .C. § 1983, 42 U .S .C. §

1985(2) and the Maine Civil Rights Act. He also seems to allege tort claims against the officers

involved in his arrest and prosecution. He claims that the officers involved in his arrest and

investigation violated his constitutional rights in a number of ways, which harmed him by

causing him to be sentenced to six years in prison. (Comp!.!! 1-4.) He also alleges that the

conduct of the officers constituted an abuse of process. (Comp!.! 3.) Stuckey does not challenge

his conviction. (Comp!.! 6.)

Procedural History

Stuckey filed his complaint against Knight on April I, 2020. He also named MDEA

agents Jonathan Stearns and Joshua McDonald as Defendants in that complaint. Defendants

Stearns and McDonald filed a motion to dismiss on June 18, 2020. Knight filed his answer and

affirmative defenses on June 22, 2020. Knight filed for summary judgment on September 21,

2020 and an unopposed motion to stay on the same day. The court dismissed Stuckey's claims

against Stearns and McDonald on October 26, 2020.

Standard of Review

Summary judgment is granted to a moving party where "there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact" and the moving party "is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." M.R. Civ. P.

56(c). "A material fact is one that can affect the outcome of the case, and there is a genuine issue

when there is sufficient evidence for a fact-finder to choose between competing versions of the

fact." Lougee Conservancy v. City Mortgage.Inc., 2012 ME 103, ! 11,48 A.3d 774 (quotation

omitted). "Facts contained in a supporting or opposing statement of material facts, if supported

2 by record citations as required by this rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly

controverted." M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4). In order to controvert an opposing party's factual

statement, a party must "support each denial or qualification by a record citation." M.R. Civ. P.

56(h)(2).

"Pro se litigants are held to the same standards are held to the same standards as

represented parties." Dep 't ofEnvtl. Prat. v. Woodman, 1997 ME 164, ,r 3 n.3, 697 A.2d 1295.

Discussion

The Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA) bars all tort claims against governmental employees

not brought within two years. 14 M.R.S. § 8110 (2020). Knight's last contact with Stuckey was

on June 30, 2016. Even if Knight's involvement in the case continued, Stuckey was sentenced on

July 31, 2017. His complaint was filed more than two years later, on March 26, 2020. Thus

Stuckey's tort claims are barred.

Even if the statute of limitations did not bar his tort complaints, they would be barred by

his failure to provide notice pursuant to the MTCA. The statute requires any person filing a tort

claim against an employee of a political subdivision of the state to file written notice of the claim

prior to commencing the action. 14 M.R.S. § 1807. Stuckey did not file any notice with any

governmental entity. Thus, his tort claims would also be barred under this provision of the

MTCA.

The bulk of Stuckey's claims are constitutional in nature. As the court pointed out in its

order dismissing Stearns and McDonald from the case, when a plaintiff's constitutional claim

"would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence ... the complaint must be

dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence already has been

invalidated." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,487 (1994). Stuckey is not challenging his

3 conviction, but the harm he claims to have suffered is imprisonment. Therefore all his claims

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction and are barred by Heck.

The entry is

Defendant Daniel Knight's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Motion to Stay is DENIED as moot.

The Clerk is directed to enter this order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 79(a).

//cc Date:/Y={ 7 ,2020 Harold Stewart, II Justice, Superior Court

4 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. <'.:c'i/,TiC: !'SC: u '· ;,,,CIVIL ACI'ION C1.m,b;;,i~;~:T ;~,; ·/;;;";:~\P~JfEf NO. CV-20-152 j' Orf ~' 2.. \);.;, ltliti '),.,_,,,., MANSFIELD STUCKEY, JR.,

Plaintiff I\! D v. DECISION AND ORDER

DANIEL KNIGHT et. al.,

Defendants

The matter before the court is a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Mansfield Stuckey, Jr.'s,

("Stuckey") complaint. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.

Background.

On June 30, 2016, Stuckey was arrested for dealing drugs by Defendant Daniel Knight

("Knight"). (Mot. Dismiss at 3.) Officer Knight had received a tip that Stuckey was dealing

drngs in the area and witnessed him drop a bag that appeared to contain heroin. Id. After his

arrest, the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency ("MDEA") identified him as suspect known as

"Black Matt," who they believed to be a major supplier of heroin and cocaine base in Portland,

ME. (Mot. Dismiss at 2.)

Stuckey was released on bail following his initial arrest. (Mot. Dismiss at 3.) On August

29, 2016, he was arrested again, this time by Special Agent McDonald ("McDonald") of the

MDEA. Id. Stuckey's bail was revoked after this arrest. Id.

Stuckey was indicted, along with 10 alleged co-conspirators, for conspiracy to distribute

and possess with intent to distribute 280 grams of crack cocaine and 1 kilogram or more of

heroin in the Southern District of New York. Id. Stuckey negotiated a plea deal with the

government that required him to plead guilty to the lesser included offense of conspiracy to

1 distribute and possess with the intent to distribute 28 grams or more of crack cocaine. Id. The

cot1rt accepted his guilty plea and Stuckey was sentenced to six years.

Stuckey brings this action pro se, alleging violations of 42 U .S .C. § J983, 42 U.S .C. §

1985(2) and the Maine Civil Rights Act. He claims that the officers involved in his arrest and

investigation violated his constitutional rights in a number of ways, which harmed him by

causing him to be sentenced to six years in prison. (Comp!.~~ 1-4.) He also alleges that the

conduct of the officers constituted an abuse of process. (Comp!.~ 3 .) Stuckey does not challenge

his conviction. (Comp!.~ 6.)

Standard

When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to M.R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6), the court views the ''facts alleged in the complaint as if they were admitted. 11 Nadeau v.

Frydrych, 2014 ME 154, j 5,108 A.3d 1254 (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted). A complaint

must set forth the "elements of a cause of action or allege[] facts that would entitle the plaintiff to

relief pursuant to some legal theory." Id. Facts arc read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Id. "Dismissal is warranted only when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff is not entitled

to relief under any set of facts that might be proved in support of the claim." Halco v. Davey, 2007

ME 48,~ 6,919 A.2d 626 (quotation marks omitted).

Rule 8 requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief." M.R. Civ, P, 8(a). "Notice pleading requirements are forgiving; the plaintiff

need only give fair notice of the cause of action by providing a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Desjardins v. Reynolds, 2017 ME 99, ir 17, 162 A. 3d 228 (quotation marks omitted). On the other hand, "a party may not proceed[] on a

cause of action if that party's complaint has failed to allege facts that, if proved, would satisfy the

2 elements of the cause of action. a Burns v. Architectural Doors and Windows, 2011 ME 61, ~117,

19 A.3d 823.

"Pro se litigants are held to the same standards are held to the same standards as

represented parties." Dep'! ofEnvtl. Prof. v. Woodman, 1997 ME 164, 13 n.3, 697 A.2d 1295.

"This is particularly trne in areas so fundamental as the service of process and the statement of a

claim." Uotinen v. Hall, 636 A.2d 991, 992 (1994).

Analysis

Stuckey's complaint a1leges many constitutional violations, but they all point to the same

harm; the six year prison sentence he is currently serving. The Supreme Court has made clear

that when a plaintiff's constitutional claim "would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction or sentence ... the complaint mi1st be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate

that the conviction or sentence already has been invalidated." I-leek v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

487 (1994). The same principle applies to abuse of process claims. Id. at 484.

Stuckey is not challenging his conviction. Thus, the inquiry turns on whether any of

Stuckey's allegations make out a claim that would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction. Stuckey raises many legal theories to allege that his rights were violated, but he

clearly alleges that the harm he suffered as a result of these alleged violations is the prison

sentence he is currently serving. To grant Stuckey relief on such a theory would necessarily

imply the invalidity of his conviction. He has therefore failed to state a claim on which relief can

be granted.

3 The entry is

The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

The Clerk is directed to enter this order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 79(a).

Harold Stewart, II Juslice, Superior Comt