United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A
JEFFREY ALKER MEYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
Ahmad Bahjat is a pro se prisoner at the Cheshire
Correctional Institution who has filed a lawsuit for money
damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that
the police wrongfully investigated a criminal case case
against him in a manner that has resulted in his conviction
and imprisonment. Because Bahjat has not shown that his
conviction has been overturned, I will dismiss this action
pursuant to the rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994).
Background
The
complaint (Doc. #1-1) alleges that on January 31, 2016,
Bahjat was accused of sexual assault. It further alleges
various missteps by police officers who were investigating
the case. The officers allegedly destroyed some camera
footage and ignored other camera footage. The officers
allegedly found the complainant's phone and purse in
Bahjat's car but gave these items back to the complainant
without examining them for evidence that may have been
helpful to Bahjat. The officers also allegedly failed to get
DNA or fingerprints from the door handles of Bahjat's
car.
According
to Bahjat, the officers' errors resulted in his
conviction, and he seeks money damages of $10 million against
each defendant. A review of the Connecticut Judicial Branch
website reflects that Bahjat was arrested on January 31,
2016, that he was convicted on August 14, 2018, by plea of
nolo contendere on the charge of “Sex 1-Use or Threat
of Force, ” and that he was sentenced to a term of 12
years of jail, execution suspended after 4
years.[1]
Discussion
Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a
prisoner's civil complaint against a governmental entity
or governmental actors and “identify cognizable claims
or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint-(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” Because Bahjat is proceeding pro se,
the allegations of his complaint must be read liberally to
raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. See
Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010).
In
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the U.S.
Supreme Court held that in order for a plaintiff “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
section 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.” Id. at 486-87. The reason for
this rule is to ensure that prisoners do not use federal
lawsuits under section 1983 to circumvent ordinary state
procedures for challenging a conviction or sentence by means
of an appeal or petition for writ of habeas corpus. Thus, if
a determination favorable to a plaintiff in a section 1983
action “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
conviction or sentence, ” id. at 487, a
plaintiff must first prove that the conviction or sentence
has been reversed on direct appeal or declared invalid before
he can recover damages under section 1983.
Here,
Bahjat's claims of police misconduct would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction and imprisonment. His
prayer for damages wholly depends on his contention that he
would not have been convicted but for the police's
inadequate investigation. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey requires
the dismissal of this action. See also D.S. v. City of
New York, 736 Fed.Appx. 284, 287 (2d Cir. 2018) (rule of
Heck v. Humphrey barred claim that defendants
engaged in misconduct leading to assault conviction).
Conclusion
For the
foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without prejudice to re-filing if
Bahjat's conviction is invaliDated: some future time. The
Clerk of Court shall close this case.
It is
so ordered.
---------