Ward v. County of Van Zandt, Texas

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: September 18, 2020
• Docket: 6:20-cv-00353
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:20-cv-00353 Jesse O’Neal Ward, Plaintiff, v. County of Van Zandt, Texas, et al. Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Jesse O’Neal Ward, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that unlawful actions taken by the defendants led to his con- viction in 1997. Doc. 1. On June 30, 2020, this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell. Doc. 2. Judge Mitchell issued a report and recommendation (Doc. 7) that plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice until the Heck conditions are met. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As the magistrate judge cor- rectly noted, to recover monetary relief for unlawful actions “that would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” the plaintiff must show that the relevant conviction “has been re- versed, expunged, invalidated or otherwise called into ques- tion.” Doc. 7 at 2 (citing Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (1994)). Upon reviewing the record, the magistrate judge could not locate evidence indicating that the defendant’s conviction had been “reversed, expunged, invalidated, or otherwise called into question.” Doc. 7 at 2. On September 3, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the report. Doc. 9. Rather than challenging specific portions of the report, plaintiff expressed a desire to convert this civil rights lawsuit to a federal habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Id. at 1. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to change his request for relief to a reversal of his criminal conviction. Id. But at this stage of the proceedings, plaintiff may not change his civil rights suit

to a habeas action. Accordingly, plaintiff's objections are mer- itless. Because plaintiff’s objections do not challenge specific por- tions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the record is reviewed for clear error. See Nettles v. Wainwright, 656 F.2d 986, 987 (5th Cir. 1981), on reh’g, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982) (noting that parties have a duty to “pinpoint those por- tions of the magistrate’s report that the court must specially consider”). Here, there is no clear error. Accordingly, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and recommenda- tion. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice until the con- ditions established in Heck have been satisfied. So ordered by the court on September 18, 2020. faba BARKER United States District Judge

-2-