Opinion
Civil Action No. 08 0886.
May 15, 2008
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will dismiss the complaint under the rule announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
Plaintiff has filed a suit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(2), seeking $250 million in compensatory damages. Plaintiff alleges that his court-appointed attorney conspired with the Court of Appeals and Superior Court for the District of Columbia to violate his civil rights in connection with a 1977 prosecution under the District of Columbia criminal code. He also alleges that his counsel committed malpractice.
In Heck v. Humphrey, the Supreme Court directed that "the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated." 512 U.S. at 487. See also, Hazel v. Reno, 20 F. Supp. 2d 21, 23-24 (D.D.C. 1998) (applying the rule in Heck to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1985). Here, the wrongs that plaintiff alleges would render his conviction invalid. The plaintiff has not demonstrated that his conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Therefore, under the rule in Heck v. Humphrey, the civil rights claim for damages must be dismissed. To the extent the complaint states a state claim for malpractice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.