United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
May 14, 2015
MICHAEL ANTHONY MCCLANAHAN, Plaintiff,
RHONDA GREER, et aI., Defendants.
JACKSON L. KISER, Senior District Judge.
Michael Anthony McClanahan, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff names as defendants Rhonda Greer, a court reporter; Keith Shortridge, a Deputy Sheriff; and Nicholas Compton, an Assistant Commonwealth Attorney. This matter is before me for screening, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 A. After reviewing Plaintiffs submissions, I dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Deputy Shortridge arrested Plaintiff for driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license. Plaintiff complains that, although he was never charged with refusing to take a breath test, Compton used Deputy Shortridge's report that accused Plaintiff of refusing to take a breath test as evidence during trial. Plaintiff further complains that Compton tried Plaintiff in violation of double jeopardy because Plaintiff was found guilty of both driving under the influence and driving under the influence with a suspended license, which all resulted from "the same act of driving." Plaintiff alleges that court reporter Greer withheld information from trial transcripts of Plaintiff's state criminal proceedings in April and July 2010. For relief, Plaintiff requests damages; a declaration that the transcripts used for appeal and habeas purposes are void and that his convictions constitute double jeopardy; and an injunction to have the United States Department of Justice investigate the defendants' offices for constitutional violations.
Plaintiffs claims cannot succeed where a judgment in his favor necessarily demonstrates the invalidity of his confinement because he fails to show that the challenged criminal proceedings terminated in his favor. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-88 (1994). Furthermore, Compton has prosecutorial immunity from damages for acts and omissions while prosecuting Plaintiff. See, e.g., Imbler v. Pachtman. 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). Moreover, Plaintiff cannot rely on labels and conclusions to state a claim, and he fails to establish any meritorious claim actionable via § 1983. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.