The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe U.S. District Judge
The Clerk has sent to the Court a civil rights complaint, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, submitted for filing by Plaintiff Ronald K. Miles, who is currently incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility.*fn1 For the reasons stated below, Miles' complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In his pro se complaint, Miles alleges that during his criminal trial, defendants Greenburgh, Wiest, and Pallidino violated Miles' constitutional rights by withholding exculpatory evidence, failing to call a potentially exculpatory witness, and allowing false evidence to be used at trial. Dkt. No. 1 at 8-10. Miles also alleges that defendants Valle and Byrne failed to properly train the prosecutorial defendants. Id. at 8. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at 9-10.
Turning to Miles' in forma pauperis application, the Court finds that Miles is eligible to commence this action in forma pauperis because he sets forth sufficient economic need. Dkt. No. 2.
The Court must now consider whether the case should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Section 1915(e) directs that when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court:
(2) [S]hall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-***
(B) the action ... (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Thus, even if a plaintiff meets the financial criteria to commence an action in forma pauperis, it is the Court's responsibility to determine that a complaint may properly be maintained in the District before it may permit the plaintiff to proceed with his or her action in forma pauperis. Id.
Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"). Section 1983 establishes a cause of action for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States. German v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 885 F. Supp. 537, 573 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983)) (footnote omitted); see also Myers v. Wollowitz, No. 95-CV-0272, 1995 WL 236245, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 1995) (McAvoy, C.J.) (Section 1983 "is the vehicle by which individuals may seek redress for alleged violations of their constitutional rights.").
In as much as Miles is seeking money damages against defendants Greenburgh, Wiest, and Pallidino arising out of his conviction, his claim is barred because he has failed to show that his conviction has been overturned. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a claim for damages relating to a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. See id. at 486-87 (explaining that to recover damages for "an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254"); see also Channer v. Mitchell, 43 F.3d 786, 788 (2d Cir. 1994) (affirming a Heck-based dismissal of § 1983 claims in which the plaintiff claimed he was unconstitutionally convicted as a result of police officers' perjury and coercion of witnesses because he had failed to establish that his conviction had been reversed); Cameron v. Fogerty, 806 F.2d 380, 386-89 (2d Cir. 1986) (dismissing § 1983 suit against police officers for unlawful arrest because conviction gave officers complete defense); Duamutef v. Morris, 956 F. Supp. 1112, 1115-18 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (dismissing § 1983 claims of malicious prosecution, false arrest, perjury, retaliation and civil rights conspiracy under Heck where the plaintiff's underlying conviction was valid).
Plaintiff's claim for money damages against the defendants Greenburgh, Wiest, and Pallidino would implicate the validity of plaintiff's conviction. Since plaintiff has not demonstrated that his conviction or sentence has in any way been invalidated, ...