UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION NATHAN JOINER, JR., Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-1238 v. HON. JANEM. BECKERING STEVEN A. FREEMAN, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to

. Plaintiff, who is a state prisoner, filed a Complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights arising out of his prosecution, defense, and trial in state court (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status on November 25, 2024. This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) and issued a Report and Recommendation, recommendingthat the Court dismiss the Complaint on the basis of the holdings ofPreiserv. Rodriguez,

(1973)and/or Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation. In accordance with

(b)(1) andFederal Ruleof Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order. Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred because: (1) Plaintiff is not challenging his state court convictions; (2) Plaintiff is not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement; and (3) Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged how his “rights were violated before even being convicted” and thus“[i]t would be uncalled for to [bar][his] [C]omplaint under ‘Heck’”(ECF No. 9at PageID.47– 8).

Under Heck, a plaintiff cannot proceed pursuant to § 1983 when success “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction”unless that conviction has been invalidated.

. Even construing Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint indulgently, Plaintiff appears to allege that his rights were violated by the manner in which he was prosecuted and defended—prior to, during, and after trial—and more broadly by the manner in which he was tried. Due to these violations of his rights, Plaintiff alleges, he was “forced into having a mistrial, where [he was] found guilty by a jury of 13 criminal charges” (ECF No. 1 at PageID.3). All of the allegations Plaintiff brings, if he were to succeed, “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction[s].” Thus, evenassuming arguendo that Plaintiff is not challenging the fact or duration

of his confinement—and acknowledging that Plaintiff means to challenge the conduct of prosecutors, defense attorneys, witnesses, judges, and others that led to his state court convictions—Plaintiff’s argument fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED.R.CIV.P. 58. Because this action was filed in forma pauperis, this Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

(6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v.Bock,

(2007). Therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED thatthe Objections (ECF No. 9) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 8) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the

Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to

(a)(3) that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.

Dated: February 13, 2025 /s/ Jane M. Beckering JANEM. BECKERING United States District Judge