United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
A. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a pro se pretrial detainee proceeding in forma
pauperis, is incarcerated in the Okmulgee County
Correctional Justice Authority, in Okmulgee, Oklahoma. He
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging he has been illegally held since December 3,
2016, in violation of his constitutional right to a speedy
trial and his rights of due process and equal protection
(Dkt. 1). He is seeking relief in the form of dismissal of
all criminal charges and release from custody. Id.
defendants are the State of Oklahoma; the Okmulgee County
District Court; Okmulgee County District Judges Ken Adair,
Dennis Shook, and Pandee Ramiriz; Okmulgee County District
Attorney Carol Iski; Okmulgee County Correctional Justice
Authority; District Attorney Rob Barris; and Okmulgee County
Sheriff's Department Officers Dustin Todd and Smokey
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The Court must identify any cognizable
claims and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious,
fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. §
se plaintiff's complaint must be broadly construed under
this standard. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
The generous construction to be given to the pro se
litigant's allegations, however, “does not relieve
the plaintiff of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on
which a recognized legal claim could be based.”
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991). Notwithstanding a pro se plaintiff's various
mistakes or misunderstandings of legal doctrines or
procedural requirements, “if a court can reasonably
read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the
plaintiff could prevail, it should do so . . . .”
Id. A reviewing court need not accept “mere
conclusions characterizing pleaded facts.” Bryson
v. City of Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir. 1990).
alleges that on December 3, 2016, Defendants Detective Dustin
Todd and Detective Smokey Patchkin, along with the District
25 Violent Crimes Task force, made a forcible entry without a
search warrant. Plaintiff was interrogated and placed under
arrest. Detective Todd used the victim's cell phone and
Plaintiff's statements to arrest Plaintiff without a
warrant. Plaintiff contends that nothing related to the crime
was found in his vehicle or residence. On December 19, 2016,
an Information was filed, charging Plaintiff with First
Degree Murder - Deliberate Intent and Robbery with a Weapon.
Court has reviewed the record and construes Plaintiff's
pleadings liberally. Haines, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
This relaxed standard, however, does not relieve his burden
of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal
claim could be based. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
only request for relief is dismissal of the pending charges
against him and release from custody. This relief, however,
cannot be granted in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Instead, this form of relief must be
requested in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
addition, if Plaintiff had requested monetary damages in this
case, the action still would fail. He first must prove his
“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, 487 (1994) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254). When
judgment for a plaintiff in a § 1983 suit “would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence, . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the
plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has
already been invalidated.” Id.
extent Plaintiff is complaining that his right to a speedy
trial has been violated, this claim also must be presented in
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, after exhaustion of
state remedies. Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 866
(10th Cir. 2000). “[A]n attempt to force the state to
go to trial may be made prior to trial, although state
remedies must still be exhausted.” Capps v.
Sullivan, 13 F.3d 350, 353-54 (10th Cir. 1993)
this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in its entirety
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). This dismissal shall count as a ...