United States District Court, District of Columbia
matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff
spro se complaint and application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons explained
below, the in forma pauperis application will be
granted and this case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, which requires immediate dismissal of a
prisoner's complaint that fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
is a federal prisoner incarcerated at the United States
Penitentiary in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia. In the prolix
complaint, plaintiff names various federal and state
defendants based in Illinois and Michigan. He challenges his
extradition in 2000 from Michigan to Illinois to face
criminal charges. See Compl. at 5. Plaintiff
alleges, among other misdeeds, that some of the defendants
"fabricated not only critical extradition evidence but
also three victims to a robbery just to guarantee that the
magistrate judge" would find probable cause to order
extradition. Id. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief
and monetary damages.
plaintiffs extradition, a jury in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois convicted him of robbery
under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and a firearms
offense. United States v. Marrero, 299 F.3d 653,
653-54 (7th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs convictions have not been
vacated. See Marrero v. United States, No. 04 C
0482, 2007 WL 914313, at *1 (N.D. 111. Mar. 21, 2007)
(denying motion to set aside conviction under 28 U.S.C.
D.C. Circuit explained long ago:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3182, a statute which implements the
Constitutional provision concerning interstate extradition,
Article IV, § 2, the governor of the asylum state has
for decision the legal question whether the demanded person
has been substantially charged with a crime and the factual
question whether he is a fugitive from justice. ... If he
resolves those questions against the prisoner, the chief
executive is required by the statute to order extradition.
Bruzaud v. Matthews, 207 F.2d 25, 26 (D.C. Cir.
1953) (citations omitted). The U.S. Supreme Court has held
that "once the governor of the asylum state has acted on
a requisition for extradition based on the demanding
state's judicial determination that probable cause
existed, no further judicial inquiry may be had on that issue
in the asylum state." Michigan v. Doran, 439
U.S. 282, 290 (1978). In other words, "once the accused
has been brought within the custody of the demanding state,
the legality of the extradition is no longer a proper subject
of any legal attack by him." Johnson v. Buie,
312 F.Supp. 1349, 1351 (W.D. Mo. 1970). Therefore, "in
respect of Civil Rights actions, it has been held that one
who has been convicted of the charged offense in the
convicting state cannot maintain an action for damages under
the Federal Civil Rights Act against those who allegedly
forcibly abducted him from an asylum state."
Id. (citations omitted).
instant complaint premised on the alleged unlawfulness of
plaintiff s extradition proceedings in Michigan is rendered
moot by plaintiffs convictions in the Northern District of
Illinois of the underlying charges. See Jackson v.
Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that
once the plaintiff was convicted of "the crime that
prompted the extradition[, ] ... the claims concerning his
pre-trial confinement became moot") (citations omitted);
accord Patterson v. State, No. 2:12-cv-04020, 2016
WL 675542 at *3 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 8, 2016) (citing cases).
Therefore, this case will be dismissed with
prejudice. A separate order accompanies this
 An unlawful extradition proceeding
would cast doubt on the sentencing court's jurisdiction
and could render plaintiffs convictions invalid. Therefore,
to state a ''cognizable" federal claim under the
present circumstances, plaintiff "must prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, ... or called into question by a
federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus[.]" Heck v. Humphrey,512 U.S. 477,
486-87 (1994). "Heck applies 'no matter the
relief sought (damages or equitable relief) ... if success in
[the] action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of
confinement or its duration.'" Harris v.
Fulwood, 611 Fed.App'x. 1, 2 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per
curiam) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson,544 U.S. 74,
81-82 (2005) (alterations in original)). Plaintiffs
convictions have been affirmed on direct appeal, and his
post-conviction habeas petitions have been denied on the
merits. See ...