Cortelyou v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al, No. 1:2016cv01811 - Document 2 (N.D. Ohio 2016)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Related document 1 . Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 7/29/2016. (K,K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cortelyou v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO JAMES CORTELYOU, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16 CV 1811 JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Seeking monetary damages, pro se plaintiff James Cortelyou has filed this civil rights action against federal officials and governmental entities alleging deficiencies and constitutional rights violations in connection with federal criminal charges and proceedings currently pending against him. Under 28 U.S.C. §1915A, federal district courts are expressly required to screen any action in which a prisoner seeks redress from governmental entities or officials, and to dismiss before service any action the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Upon review, the Court finds this action must be dismissed under §1915A. The plaintiff’s claims can and must first be raised within the context of his pending criminal case, in which he is represented by counsel. Further, his damages claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), in which the Supreme Court held that “in order to recover Dockets.Justia.com damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” a prisoner must show that the 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.” See also Robinson v. Jones, 142 F.3d 905, 907 (6th Cir. 1998) (the holding in Heck “applies equally” to actions brought against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)). The plaintiff’s allegations in this case call into question the validity of his imprisonment on pending federal charges and are therefore barred under Heck unless or until the charges are invalidated in one of the ways stated in Heck. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. The Court further 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/Dan Aaron Polster 7/29/2016 DAN AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -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.
