Mayes v. Acree

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON

RICHIE ELZANDER MAYES, ) )

Plaintiff, ) Civil No. 5: 21-171-HRW )

V. ) )

A. ACREE and ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

LINDSAY THURSTON, ) AND ORDER )

Defendants. ) *** *** *** ***

Plaintiff Richie Elzander Mayes has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [D. E. No. 1] The Court has granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis by separate Order.

The Court must review the complaint prior to service of process, and dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F. 3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). At this stage, the Court accepts all non-conclusory factual allegations in the complaint as true and liberally construes its legal claims in the plaintiff’s favor. Davis v. Prison Health Servs., 679 F.3d 433, 437-38 (6th Cir. 2012).

Mayes was confined at the Fayette County Detention Center when he filed his complaint [D. E. No. 1 at 1], but is no longer confined at the jail.1 Mayes complains that information on the warrant for his arrest incorrectly stated the date of the offense which provided the basis for the warrant. [D. E. No. 1 at 2] However, his complaint is hard to follow because he makes unexplained references to three different criminal cases. With respect to one of them, he also complains that witnesses did not attend a preliminary hearing and contends that Kentucky law does not permit him to be prosecuted by uniform citation rather than a police report. Mayes claims without explanation that he was arrested “unlawfully” by Officer Acree and detained “unlawfully” by presiding Judge Thurston. Id. at 3. For relief, Mayes seeks release from custody and monetary damages. [D. E. No. 5 at 6]2

Records from the Kentucky Court of Justice indicate that Mayes violated an emergency protective order / domestic violence order (“EPO/DVO”) on February 12, 2021 and again on February 17, 2021. Mayes was arrested on both charges on March 18, 2021, and five days later was found guilty and sentenced to 45 days in

Second, Mayes may not obtain the relief he seeks through the present action. To obtain his release from custody, Mayes must be file a habeas corpus proceeding challenging his detention, not a civil rights action. Adams v. Morris, 90 F. App’x 856, 858 (6th Cir. 2004); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). And he may not sue for damages asserting that his arrest amounted to false imprisonment until he has obtained the reversal of the underlying criminal charges. Sanders v. Detroit Police Dep’t, 490 F. App’x 771, 773 (6th Cir. 2012); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Mayes’s complaint is therefore premature until he has satisfied this condition precedent to suit.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff Richie Mayes’s complaint [D. E. No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. Mayes’s “Motion to Dismiss” [D. E. No. 6] is DENIED AS MOOT.

3. This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket.

This 2nd day of September, 2021.