WILLIAMS v. THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al, No. 1:2009cv01672 - Document 5 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 8/28/09. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Roderick Williams, Plaintiff, v. The Department of Justice et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. SEP - 2 2009 Clerk, U.S. District and Benkruptcy Courts 09 1672 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and will dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). Under that statute, the Court is required to screen a prisoner's complaint and dismiss it if, among other grounds, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff, a prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution Victorville in Adelanto, California, sues Attorney General Eric Holder and the United States for alleged misconduct by Department of Justice employees, including the assistant United States attorneys ("AUSAs") involved in his criminal prosecution in the District of Alaska. Plaintiff alleges, among other misdeeds, that the AUSAs presented false and misleading evidence to the grand jury to secure an indictment and withheld exculpatory evidence. He seeks monetary damages exceeding $1.2 million and injunctive relief. Because plaintiffs success on the merits of the complaint would necessarily invalidate his conviction, plaintiff cannot recover monetary damages without first establishing that his conviction has been invalidated by "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by executive order, declar[ation of invalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or ... a federal court's issuance ofa writ of habeas corpus." Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,486-87 (1994). Plaintiff has not made such a showing here. In addition, "it is well-settled that a [person] seeking relief from his conviction or sentence may not bring [] an action" for injunctive and declaratory relief because he has an available remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 808-10 (D.C. Cir. 1988)); see LoBue v. Christopher, 82 F.3d 1081, 1082-84 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action where habeas corpus remedy was available in the location of plaintiffs custodian). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. ~ Date: August ~, 2009 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
