STANFORD v. HUMMEL et al, No. 1:2009cv00814 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 04/20/09. (mmh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN STANFORD, Plaintiff, v. STEVE HUMMEL, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. MAY - 4 2009 NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON, ClERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT iJ9 0814 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiff, who is awaiting a new trial on drug charges, alleges that defendant, a Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration, provided "fabricated and misleading" testimony before a grand jury. Compl. at 2 (page numbers designated by the Court). He requests "some type of compensation as to the length of time" he has been held in custody as a result of defendant's "delibrate [sic] attempt ... to get [him] sent to prison for being what [defendant] calls a drug lieutenant." Id. at 5. Placing "a dollar amount" on his claim, plaintiff "would say 200,000 dollars plus any attorney fees." Id. Plaintiffs claim for damages in this civil rights action challenging the fact or duration of confinement must fail. Plaintiff must first establish that his confinement 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 of a writ of 3 habeas corpus." Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,486-87 (1994); accord White v. Bowie, 194 F.3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (table). Plaintiffhas not satisfied the prerequisite and therefore fails to state a claim. The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this same date. DATE: ~ ~~ -.c.. Uni
]]>
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.
