UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
July 14, 2010
RONDULA LANE, PLAINTIFF,
CLAIRE PAPADIMITRIOUS, COMPLAINANT; KEVIN BEACH, CHIEF OF ROME POLICE DEPARTMENT; JEFFREY A. RACE, DETECTIVE; JAMES P. BOYER, DETECTIVE; ALBERT J. CICCONE, PATROLMAN; PATRICK J. MARTHAGE, ESQ., FIRST ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER; BARRY M. DONALTY, ACTING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE; AND LAURIE LISI, ESQ., ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
In this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed June 2, 2010, plaintiff claims his rights were violated in connection with a criminal prosecution against him. United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter has prepared a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) granting plaintiff's motion (Dkt. No. 2) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis only for the purpose of filing the complaint, and recommending that this Court dismiss the complaint (Dkt. No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii). ("[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that... (B) the action... (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.").
Plaintiff has submitted an objection to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 10). He does not appear to object to dismissal of the claims against defendants Barry M. Donalty, Acting Supreme Court Justice, and Laurie Lisi, Esq., Assistant District Attorney; in any event, they must be dismissed on grounds of judicial and prosecutorial immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). Plaintiff objects to the recommended dismissal of the claims against the other defendants, and the Court reviews these matters de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Baxter's conclusion that the claims against the other defendants fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
In objecting to dismissal of his claims, plaintiff alleges that the state criminal trial underlying the instant section 1983 action "is now over" and that he was "found guilty of all the charges brought up against [him.]"*fn1 Thus, plaintiff's claims in the nature of perjury, slander, evidence-tampering, conspiracy to bring unfounded criminal charges against him, and false imprisonment necessarily implicate the validity of his conviction and are thus barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), until such time as the conviction may be vacated or otherwise invalidated. See Channer v. Mitchell, 43 F.3d 786, 787-88 (2d Cir. 1994); Jackson v. County of Nassau, 2010 WL 335581, *8 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). Likewise, plaintiff's claim of ineffective assistance of his assigned trial counsel implicates the validity of his conviction and is barred by Heck. See Evans v. Nassau County, 184 F.Supp.2d 238, 243 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). For these reasons as well, the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
It is therefore ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is accepted; and it is further
ORDERED that for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation and in this Memorandum-Decision and Order, the complaint is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.