Thorman v. Quas et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Daniel Louis Thorman,
Petitioner, 	Case Number: 25-13131
Honorable F. Kay Behm
v.
Fred Miller, et al.,
Respondent.
/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE
Plaintiff Daniel Louis Thorman is a prisoner in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections. Thorman filed this pro se complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Thorman’s offender profile from the Michigan Department of
Corrections Offender Tracking Information System (“OTIS”), shows that, in 2024,
he pleaded no contest in Lapeer County Circuit Court to accosting a child for
immoral purposes, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.145a, and aggravated possession of
child sexually abusive material, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.145c(4)(a). He received
a cumulative sentence of two to ten years. Thorman’s complaint concerns this
state court criminal proceeding. He claims that he was denied the effective
assistance of counsel, denied due process, and wrongfully convicted and sentenced.
(Compl., ECF No.1, PageID.3-5.) He seeks $ 350,000 in damages. (Id. at
PageID.8.)
Case 4:25-cv-13131-FKB-DRG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 1 of 3

2
A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is an appropriate remedy for a prisoner
challenging a condition of imprisonment. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
499 (1973). “[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district
court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 487 (1994). If it would, the § 1983 claim is not cognizable and “must be
dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has
already been invalidated.” Id. Unless a state prisoner’s conviction has been
previously invalidated, the prisoner’s “§ 1983 action is barred ... 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.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (emphasis in original).
Thorman attacks the fairness of the state-court criminal proceeding which
resulted in his present confinement but does not claim that his convictions have
been invalidated by state officials or by a federal judge on habeas review. If he
were to prevail in this action, his continued confinement would be called into
question. Consequently, a civil rights complaint is not the proper avenue for
seeking relief and the complaint will be dismissed.
Case 4:25-cv-13131-FKB-DRG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Thorman may challenge the validity of his state court convictions by filing a
federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. If he moves forward
with a § 2254 habeas petition, Thorman should be aware that he must have
exhausted his state court remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief. See
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The Court will direct the Clerk to send Thorman a copy of
the form petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint. Because the Court is
dismissing the complaint pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, the dismissal will be
without prejudice. See Wheeler v. Dayton Police Dep’t, 807 F.3d 764, 767 (6th
Cir. 2015).
The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision cannot be taken in good
faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail Petitioner a § 2254 form (AO
241).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 28, 2025 	s/F. Kay Behm
F. Kay Behm
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-13131-FKB-DRG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 3 of 3