Harris v. Bazilius et al, No. 1:2016cv02346 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2016)
Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order. This action is dismissed under section 1915A. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 10/4/2016. (H,CM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Harris v. Bazilius et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WALTER LEE HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. CYNTHIA BAZILIUS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16 CV 2346 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff pro se Walter Lee Harris, an inmate at the Cuyahoga County Jail, filed this civil rights action against Cleveland Police Detective Cynthia Bazilius, Sheriff Clifford Pinkney, and “State Attorney” Jeffrey S. Shnatter. Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that he was subjected to an unlawful search and arrest, that his bond was revoked based on unknown warrant, and that his pending retrial violates his speedy trial rights and subjects him to double jeopardy. He asserts his current detention is therefore unlawful. For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed. A district court is expressly required to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental officer or entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if the court concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if the plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915A; Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167 , at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000). The Supreme Court has held that, when a prisoner challenges "the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, ... his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus." Preiser v. Dockets.Justia.com Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 501 (1973). Further, absent allegations that criminal proceedings terminated in Plaintiff's favor or that a conviction stemming from the asserted violation of his rights was reversed, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, he may not recover damages for his claim. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915A. Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Christopher A. Boyko CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: October 4, 2016 -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.
