Jeffrey v. Simms et al, No. 3:2010cv00332 - Document 24 (W.D. Ky. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 11 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 04/14/2011. cc:counsel (CSD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DIVISION OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:10-CV-00332-TBR RICHARD JEFFREY PLAINTIFF v. ANN SIMMS, individually and as City Administrator of the City of Prospect, Kentucky and DEBORAH SKAGGS, individually and as Deputy City Clerk of City of Prospect, Kentucky and MARVIN A. WILSON, individually and as Chief of Police of the City of Prospect, Kentucky and DENNIS WINE, individually and as Lieutenant Of Police of City of Prospect, Kentucky and CITY OF PROSPECT, KENTUCKY DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant has moved to dismiss the above case under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff has responded, and Defendant has replied. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for adjudication. However, binding precedent precludes dismissal under Heck given the instant facts. In no uncertain terms, the Sixth Circuit has stated that Heck would not serve as a bar to claims when habeas relief is unavailable. Powers v. Hamilton County Public Defender Comm n, 501 F.3d 592, 603 (6th Cir. 2008) ( Heck s favorable-termination requirement cannot be imposed against § 1983 plaintiffs who lack a habeas option for the vindication of their federal rights. ). Plaintiff has suffered only a fine in his underlying municipal case, and habeas is accordingly unavailable. Id. ( Plaintiff s § 1983 suit [can] proceed despite noncompliance with the favorable-termination requirement because the plaintiff had been assessed only a monetary fine in his criminal proceeding and thus was ineligible for habeas relief. (citing Leather v. Ten Eyck, 180 F.3d 420, 424 (2d Cir. 1999))).1 Accordingly, the issue of whether the underlying case was civil or criminal is moot - even assuming, arguendo, that the underlying case was criminal, Heck still does not serve as a bar. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss (DN 11) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. April 14, 2011 1 Because a Heck dismissal is unavailable due to the lack of a habeas remedy, this Court does not reach and expresses no opinion on whether the underlying proceeding was criminal in nature. 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.
