Opinion
Case No. 01-CV-71811-DT
June 4, 2001
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
On May 16, 2001, Plaintiff Jerold Thomas Brayboy, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint seeking monetary and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Wayne County Circuit Court. Plaintiff asserts that his 1987 nolo contendere plea to second-degree murder and resulting sentence violate double jeopardy because a jury had been impaneled and sworn prior to the plea, and that both his trial counsel and the prosecutor were ineffective. Plaintiff seeks "full relief" on his second-degree murder conviction and sentence, as well as "4 zillion dollars" in damages. (Compl. § IV). For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses the complaint as frivolous.
Section 1983 provides, in pertinent segment:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . ..
The Michigan Court of Appeals found no support for Plaintiff's assertion that the jury had been impaneled, sworn, or discharged. See Michigan v. Brayboy, No. 148529 (Mich.Ct.App. Sept. 29, 1992).
Discussion
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for this action. The Court may dismiss an indigent prisoner's civil rights complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages from a defendant who is immune from monetary relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) 1915A(b); Smith v. Campbell, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (6th Cir. 2001).
A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Plaintiff's complaint lacks an arguable basis in law and fails to state a claim because "[a] state court is not a `person' for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and hence is not subject to lawsuit under that statute." Mumford v. Basinski, 105 F.3d 264, 267 (6th Cir. 1997).
Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, his claims must be dismissed. Prisoners have no right to money damages for allegedly unlawful confinement unless they can demonstrate that their convictions or sentences were reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, invalidated by a state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L Ed.2d 393 (1994). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated. A judgment in Plaintiff's favor in this case would necessarily imply that his conviction or sentence is invalid. Therefore, the complaint must be dismissed. Id. at 487, 114 S.Ct. at 2372.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Jerold Thomas Brayboy's complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). An appeal from this order would be frivolous and could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445, 82 S.Ct. 917, 921, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 609 (6th Cir. 1997).