# ALLEN v. TUNEY

> District Court, E.D. Tennessee · May 31, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10435878

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** May 31, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10435878

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding a prisoner’s civil-rights action “is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings
- finding a probation officer is entitled to such quasi- judicial immunity when acting within the scope of her duties as a probation officer
- holding that “quasi-judicial immunity extends to those persons performing tasks so integral or intertwined with the judicial process that these persons are considered an arm of the judicial officer who is immune”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA

LESLIE DEWAYNE ALLEN, )
) Case No. 1:24-cv-160
Plaintiff, )
) Judge Travis R. McDonough
v. )
) Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger
GARY P. TUNEY and ADRIANNE S. )
BROWN, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, filed a complaint under the doctrine announced in Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (Doc. 1) and
(2) a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion (id.) and DISMISS this action.
I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
It appears from Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 2) and inmate account statement (Doc. 10) that
he cannot pay the filing fee in a lump sum. Accordingly, this motion (Doc. 2) will be
GRANTED.
Plaintiff will be ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00. The custodian of Plaintiff’s
inmate trust account will be DIRECTED to submit to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, 900
Georgia Avenue, Suite 309, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402, as an initial partial payment,
whichever is the greater of: (a) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly deposits to
Plaintiff’s inmate trust account; or (b) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly balance in
his inmate trust account for the six-month period preceding the filing of the complaint. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A) and (B). Thereafter, the custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account
shall submit twenty percent (20%) of Plaintiff’s preceding monthly income (or income credited
to Plaintiff’s trust account for the preceding month), but only when such monthly income
exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the full filing fee of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) as
authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) has been paid to the Clerk. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). To

ensure compliance with this fee-collection procedure, the Clerk will be DIRECTED to provide a
copy of this Memorandum and Order to the custodian of inmate accounts at the institution where
Plaintiff is now confined and the Court’s financial deputy. This Order shall be placed in
Plaintiff’s prison file and follow him if he is transferred to another correctional institution.
II. COMPLAINT SCREENING
A. Standard
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), district courts must screen prisoner
complaints and sua sponte dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim
for relief, or are against a defendant who is immune. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and

1915A; Benson v. O’Brian, 179 F.3d 1014 (6th Cir. 1999). The dismissal standard articulated by
the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544 (2007) “governs dismissals for failure state a claim under [28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 1915A] because the relevant statutory language tracks the language in Rule 12(b)(6)” of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus,
to survive an initial review under the PLRA, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
Courts liberally construe pro se pleadings filed in civil rights cases and hold them to a
less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972). However, allegations that give rise to a mere possibility that a plaintiff might
later establish undisclosed facts supporting recovery are not well-pled and do not state a
plausible claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570. Further, formulaic and conclusory recitations

of the elements of a claim which are not supported by specific facts do not state a plausible claim
for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681.
B. Plaintiff’s Allegations
At his federal sentencing, Plaintiff was designated as a career criminal and given criminal
history points inaccurately because the United States Probation Office “failed to keep accurate
records of [Plaintiff’s] criminal history.” (Doc. 1, at 2.) The Government “stated that it had six
prior convictions to use against [Plaintiff,] but the PSR only showed . . . four.” (Id.) Plaintiff
tried to contact the Probation Office to correct this alleged error, but “they continually keep
denying [Plaintiff] and not answering.” (Id. at 3.)

Aggrieved, Plaintiff filed this action against United States Probation Officers Gary P.
Tuney and Adrianne S. Brown, seeking correction of his Presentence Investigation Report, the
payment of various fees, and the award of monetary damages. (Id. at 4.)
C. Analysis
1. Defendants Are Immune
Plaintiff cannot maintain suit against Defendants, because they are entitled to quasi-
judicial immunity from liability for actions taken in their role as probation officers. See Bush v.
Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir. 1994) (holding that “quasi-judicial immunity extends to those
persons performing tasks so integral or intertwined with the judicial process that these persons
are considered an arm of the judicial officer who is immune”); Loggins v. Franklin Cnty., Ohio,
218 F. App’x 466, 476 (6th Cir. 2007) (finding a probation officer is entitled to such quasi-
judicial immunity when acting within the scope of her duties as a probation officer). The
preparation of a Presentence Investigation Report is an act “intrinsically associate[d] with a
judicial proceeding.” Bush, 38 F.3d at 847. Therefore, Defendants will be DISMISSED from
this action.
2. Plaintiff’s Suit Is Barred
Additionally, Plaintiff cannot obtain damages related to his federal criminal sentence

unless he can first prove that his conviction or sentence has been reversed or otherwise
invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74,
81–82 (2005) (holding a prisoner’s civil-rights action “is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no
matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit
(state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)—if success in that action
would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration”); see also Robinson
v. Jones, 142 F.3d 905, 906–07 (6th Cir. 1998) (extending Heck to Bivens actions). Because
Plaintiff seeks relief that attacks the lawfulness of his sentence without first demonstrating that
sentence has been set aside or invalidated, his complaint fails to state a claim under Heck. See
Harris v. Truesdell, No. 03-1440, 2003 WL 22435646 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2003) (affirming district
court judgment that Heck-barred claim fails to state a claim and is frivolous).
III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff is ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00;
3. The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account is DIRECTED to submit the filing
fee to the Clerk in the manner set forth above;
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the
custodian of inmate accounts at the institution where Plaintiff is now confined and the
Court’s financial deputy;

5. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous, for failure to state a claim, and as
against Defendants who are immune; and

6. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good
faith and would be totally frivolous. See Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10435878. Public record. Not legal advice.