Knight v. Cunningham ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 WADE ALAN KNIGHT, Case No. 3:23-CV-00421-ART-CLB 6 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 7 ANDREW CUNNINGHAM, 8 Defendant. 9 10 11 Plaintiff Wade Alan Knight (“Knight”) brings this action against City of Elko 12 Police Officer Andrew Cunningham (“Cunningham”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for 13 unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution based on Knight’s arrest on May 26, 14 2022. Before the Court are Knight’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF 15 No. 8), pro se civil rights complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), motion for settlement 16 conference, (ECF No. 9), and motion for case status (ECF No. 13.) 17 Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin issued a Report and Recommendation 18 “R&R” (ECF No. 10) recommending that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application, 19 (ECF No. 8), be denied as moot, the complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be dismissed 20 without prejudice and without leave to amend, and the motion for settlement 21 conference, (ECF No. 9), be denied as moot. Plaintiff filed an objection to this R&R 22 (ECF No. 11.) 23 For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts Judge Baldwin’s R&R in 24 part. The Court defers Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 8), 25 dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1), with leave to amend, and denies 26 Plaintiff’s motion for settlement conference (ECF No. 9) as moot. The Court also 27 denies Plaintiff’s motion for case status (ECF No 13.) 28 // 1 I. Review of Reports and Recommendations 2 Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a Court “may accept, reject, or modify, 3 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate 4 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s 5 report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de 6 novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which 7 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A court is not required to conduct “any 8 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. 9 Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 10 II. Analysis 11 Knight brings Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims, 12 alleging that he was arrested without probable cause, resulting in his 13 detention. Judge Baldwin’s R&R recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims 14 because they may not be brought under § 1983, and rather must be brought in 15 a habeas corpus action. Plaintiff objects that he is not trying to overturn his 16 conviction, nor is he trying to file a habeas corpus petition. As such, the court 17 reviews this issue de novo. 18 A person may not recover under § 1983 for damages for an allegedly 19 unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment in a state criminal proceeding which 20 resulted in a conviction. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Rather, where 21 a plaintiff has suffered conviction in a state criminal proceeding, this type of 22 challenge must be brought in a habeas corpus action. Id. at 481-83. In a § 1983 23 action, where “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the 24 invalidity of his conviction or sentence,” then “the complaint must be dismissed 25 unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already 26 been invalidated.” Id. at 487. 27 In other words, to proceed under § 1983 for a claim of malicious 28 prosecution, Plaintiff must demonstrate to the Court that the case was resolved 1 in his favor – that he was not convicted or his conviction or sentence was later 2 invalidated. Id. at 486-87. If, however, Plaintiff was convicted and his conviction 3 has not been invalidated, he cannot bring these claims under § 1983; such claims 4 may only be brought in a habeas corpus action. Id. at 481. 5 The Court thus agrees with Judge Baldwin’s analysis that Plaintiff’s claims, 6 as they are plead, cannot be brought under § 1983. However, if Plaintiff can 7 demonstrate that he has not been convicted or his conviction has been 8 invalidated, amendment to his complaint would not be futile. Thus, the Court will 9 grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to demonstrate that he was not 10 convicted or his conviction was later invalidated, under Heck, 512 U.S. at 486- 11 87. If, however, Plaintiff was convicted and the conviction has not been 12 invalidated, Plaintiff should not amend his complaint and can choose to bring 13 these claims in a separate habeas corpus action. 14 III. CONCLUSION 15 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Baldwin’s Report 16 and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is OVERRULED. 17 It is further ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation 18 (ECF No. 10) is ADOPTED IN PART. 19 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 20 8), is DEFERRED. 21 It is further ordered that the Clerk FILE the complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 22 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is DISMISSED 23 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by October 24 26, 2024 if he wishes to demonstrate that he was not convicted or his conviction 25 has been invalidated. 26 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for settlement conference (ECF 27 No. 9) is DENIED as moot. 28 // 1 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs motion for case status (ECF No. 13) is 2 || DENIED. 3 4 Dated this 26t day of September 2024. 5 6 Ana jlosed Jer 7 ANNE R. TRAUM 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28