Opinion
Civil Action 23-1018 (UNA)
05-04-2023
GARRIN DAVID SMITH, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JIA M. COBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court grants the application and, for the reasons discussed below, dismisses the complaint.
The Court construes the complaint as one demanding monetary compensation of $9 billion, see Compl. at 12, for the years plaintiff spent in custody, initially pursuant to warrants issued by state courts in South Carolina, see id. at 3-4, and later while serving a federal sentence, see id. at 4-7, allegedly in violation of rights protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, see id. at 1, 2. This claim fails.
As the Supreme Court has held:
[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, a § 1983 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); Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340-41 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (applying the Heck rule to Bivens actions). Plaintiff does not allege that his convictions or sentences have been reversed or otherwise invalidated, and, therefore, his claim for damages fails. See, e.g., Johnson v. Williams, 699 F.Supp.2d 159, 171 (D.D.C. 2010), aff'd sub nom. Johnson v. Fenty, No. 10-5105, 2010 WL 4340344 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 1, 2010); Jones v. Yanta, No. 07-1172, 2008 WL 2202219, at *1 (D.D.C. May 27, 2008). This outcome should come as no surprise to plaintiff, as his previous claims, filed in the District of South Carolina, have also been unsuccessful. See Smith v. County of Greenville, No. 6:18-cv-1744 (D.S.C. Aug. 7, 2018) (adopting Amended Report of Magistrate Judge to dismiss without prejudice under Heck); Smith v. Brown, No. 6:09-cv-2903 (D.S.C. Jan. 26, 2010) (dismissing Bivens claims against federal officials and dismissing claims against State officials under Heck).
An Order is issued separately.