Opinion
Case Number: 2:12-CV-12274
11-08-2012
WOODROW WILSON, Petitioner, v. DEAN VALENTE, et al., Respondent.
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT. 10)
State inmate Woodrow Wilson filed a pro se civil rights complaint alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and was denied his right to due process during the sentencing proceedings for his state court criminal convictions. Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. He named as defendants, Dean Valente, the attorney who represented him in those proceedings, two unknown prosecutors, an unknown court reporter, and unknown courtroom clerk. On September 28, 2012, the Court dismissed the complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), because Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
Motions for reconsideration may be granted when the moving party shows (1) a "palpable defect," (2) by which the court and the parties were misled, and (3) the correction of which will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A "palpable defect" is a "defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain." Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F. Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and was denied his right to due process during the sentencing proceedings for his state court criminal convictions. He named as defendants, Dean Valente, the attorney who represented him in those proceedings, two unknown prosecutors, an unknown court reporter, and unknown courtroom clerk. The Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), because the claims necessarily challenged the validity of Plaintiff's conviction.
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that because he alleged that his attorney engaged in a conspiracy to deny him his right to a formal sentencing, his claim is not barred by Heck. He states that he is no longer serving the sentence he challenges and, therefore, the complaint did not challenge the validity of his continued confinement. Because Plaintiff is no longer "in custody" pursuant to the sentence being challenged, he has no habeas remedy available to challenge the sentencing proceedings. However, the mere unavailability of habeas relief does not excuse the application of Heck to § 1983 claims that call into question the validity of a conviction or sentence. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17 (1998). The complaint challenged the validity of the sentencing proceedings. It was not properly filed under § 1983 and Plaintiff has not shown that dismissal of the complaint was the result of a palpable defect.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [dkt. #10] is DENIED.
_______________________
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record and on
Woodrow Wilson, #145772, Marquette Branch Prison,
1960 U.S. Hwy 41 South, Marquette, MI 49855, on
November 8, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.