FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP - 2 2009
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and
Benkruptcy Courts
Roderick Williams, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
Civil Action No.
09 1672
)
The Department of Justice et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed
in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and will dismiss the case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). Under that statute, the Court is required to screen a prisoner's complaint
and dismiss it if, among other grounds, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.
Plaintiff, a prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution Victorville in
Adelanto, California, sues Attorney General Eric Holder and the United States for alleged
misconduct by Department of Justice employees, including the assistant United States attorneys
("AUSAs") involved in his criminal prosecution in the District of Alaska. Plaintiff alleges,
among other misdeeds, that the AUSAs presented false and misleading evidence to the grand jury
to secure an indictment and withheld exculpatory evidence. He seeks monetary damages
exceeding $1.2 million and injunctive relief.
Because plaintiffs success on the merits of the complaint would necessarily invalidate
his conviction, plaintiff cannot recover monetary damages without first establishing that his
conviction has been invalidated by "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by executive
order, declar[ation of invalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or ...
a federal court's issuance ofa writ of habeas corpus." Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,486-87
(1994). Plaintiff has not made such a showing here. In addition, "it is well-settled that a [person]
seeking relief from his conviction or sentence may not bring [] an action" for injunctive and
declaratory relief because he has an available remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Williams v. Hill,
74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973);
Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 808-10 (D.C. Cir. 1988)); see LoBue v. Christopher,
82 F.3d 1081, 1082-84 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a
declaratory judgment action where habeas corpus remedy was available in the location of
plaintiffs custodian). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
~
Date: August ~, 2009
2