The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn U.S. District Judge
By Decision and Order filed January 7, 2008, Plaintiff Larry B. Lindsey was directed to file an amended complaint in this consolidated action. Dkt. No. 6 at 4 (the "January Order").
Plaintiff's submission in response to the January Order is before this Court for review. Dkt. No. 7.
By his original Complaints, Plaintiff appeared to claim that his constitutional rights were violated because state court criminal proceedings were conducted against him during the period March through May, 2007, on the basis of allegedly invalid and insufficient accusatory instruments.*fn1 In the January Order, the Court determined that Plaintiff's claims for money damages against the Defendant police officers implicate the validity of Plaintiff's convictions. However, while the Complaints contained references to the dismissal of charges and/or proceedings, Plaintiff did not sufficiently identify the matters to which he referred.*fn2 As a result, the Court was not able to determine whether Plaintiff's convictions or sentences have been invalidated and, therefore, whether some or all of his claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's seventy-one page submission in response to the January Order is not a proper pleading and, moreover, fails to state a claim for the violation of Plaintiff's rights upon which relief may be granted by this Court.*fn3 Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint setting forth a short and concise statement of his claim against the named Defendants and of the facts upon which he relies in support thereof. Rather, Plaintiff's submission simply states that one charge (attempted rape) was dismissed on September 21, 2007, and then sets forth legal arguments and citations in support of his position that the accusatory instruments were defective. Dkt. No. 7 at 1-5. As drafted, the amended complaint is not susceptible of a response by the named Defendants. Moreover, it is clear from the Court's review of Plaintiff's submission that the relief he seeks in this action is the dismissal of a state court order of protection which he considers to be unlawful. See Dkt. No. 7 at 1. The relief sought by Plaintiff is not available in this § 1983 action. Additionally, because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the order of protection was issued in violation of his rights or that it has been invalidated, any claims for monetary damages related thereto are barred by Heck.
In sum, having read the amended complaint in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that the claims asserted therein are not sufficient to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
ORDERED, that Case Nos. 1:07-CV-1259 and 1:07-CV-1287, consolidated by previous Order of this Court (Dkt. No. 6), are DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED, that each of these two dockets are to be CLOSED by the Clerk of the Court; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on Plaintiff by regular mail.