IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

BRADY ANDREW MURPHY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 4:20-cv-04074

INVESTIGATOR RICHARD ZANE BUTLER, Ashdown Police Department DEFENDANT

ORDER Plaintiff Brady Andrew Murphy filed this case pro se pursuant to

on September 9, 2020. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on September 30, 2020. (ECF No. 9). The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Division of Correction’s Ouachita River Unit serving a sentence as a of result of judgment or conviction. (ECF No. 1, p. 3). The events in question occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Little River County Jail (“LRCJ”). He specifically states he was convicted on July 7, 2020, and is “serving 12 years for poss. w/perpose to deliver and poss. of drug paraphernalia.” Id. Plaintiff names Richard Zane Butler, an investigator with the Ashdown Arkansas Police Department, as the only Defendant. In Claim One, Plaintiff alleges on July 7, 2020, Defendant Butler “abusen his power to get me more time Im suffering mentally physicaly and emotionly.” (ECF No. 1, p. 4). Plaintiff describes Claim Two as “alterating evidence” and alleges on July 11, 2020, Defendant Butler stated “the dope weighed 10.8 on a uncalibrated scale pictures show 10.7 with a torn peace of bag with nuthin in it . . . .” Id. at p. 5. Plaintiff is suing Defendant Butler in his individual capacity only. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at p. 7. II. LEGAL STANDARD Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are

frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). “In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded . . . to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. Nixon,

(8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007)). However, a pro se Plaintiff must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. See Martin v. Sargent,

(8th Cir. 1985). III. ANALYSIS Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Butler are barred by the Heck doctrine. In Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994), the Supreme Court held that a claim for damages for “allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid” is not cognizable until “the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Heck,

-87. The Court noted that if a successful claim would not demonstrate the invalidity of an outstanding criminal judgment, it should be allowed to proceed. Here, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Butler are based on the investigation of a crime for which Plaintiff was charged and convicted. Plaintiff has not alleged that his conviction has

been favorably terminated. His requests for monetary damages are therefore barred by Heck. Plaintiff may not use the civil rights statutes as a substitute for direct appeal or for habeas corpus relief. See e.g., Edwards v. Balisok,

(1997); Preiser v. Rodriquez,

(1973) (habeas corpus is the sole federal remedy for prisoners attacking the validity of their conviction or confinement). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Butler must be dismissed pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(i-iii) and 1915A(a). IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of December, 2020. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge