Maskell v. Green et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
ADAM MASKELL 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 1:23-cv-01064
DEPUTY ANDY GREEN
DEPUTY J. RAMIREZ
DEPUTY ANTHONY GALLEGOS
BRADLEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 34. On November 25, 2024,
Adam Maskell (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response. ECF No. 37. Defendants filed a Reply on December 2,
2024. ECF No. 38.0F 1 This Motion has been referred to the undersigned and is now ripe for
consideration. Based upon the Court’s review of this Motion, the Court recommends it be
GRANTED.
I. 	Background:
In his original Complaint filed on June 22, 2023, Plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief
against the deputies involved in his then pending criminal case in Bradley County, Arkansas.1F
2
Defendants answered on September 1, 2023. ECF No. 7. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on September 6, 2023, and Defendants filed an answer to that Amended Complaint on
September 15, 2023. ECF Nos. 11, 12. 	On October 12, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings arguing the Court should abstain from the present action under the
1 On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a letter to the Court regarding punitive damages (ECF No.39) and a Supplemental
Answer to the Defendants Reply (ECF No. 40).
2 In State v. Maskell, 06CR-22-25, Plaintiff was charged with a one count of possession of a firearm by certain persons.
Plaintiff entered a plea of guilty on September 24, 2024. Case information is publicly available at Arkansas Court Connect
https://caseinfonew.arcourts.gov/opad/case/06CR-22-25. (accessed December 12, 2024)
Case 1:23-cv-01064-SOH Document 41 Filed 12/16/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine “pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s underlying criminal
charges.” ECF No. 16. That motion was granted dismissing the case without prejudice on January 10,
2024. ECF No. 26.
On October 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this lawsuit stating his underlying
criminal case was concluded because he was sentenced to five years in state prison by the Circuit
Court Judge in Bradley County. ECF No. 27. On October 24, 2024, the Court granted the motion to
reopen and noted that Plaintiff pled guilty in the underlying criminal case and was sentenced. ECF
No. 30. In response to this Court’s order, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on November
5, 2024. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff sues Defendants Green, Ramirez, and Gallegos in their individual
capacities only. Id. at pp. 5, 7, 8. Plaintiff seeks the following relief:
$300,000 - $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and Punitive Damages or any other
amount the Court deems appropriate. Injunctive Relief dismissal of my State
Conviction for the constitutional violations, the deputies committing Perjury, and
dismissal with prejudice due to withholding favorable evidence and using a coerced
confession.
Id. at p. 9.
Plaintiff alleges Defendant Green violated Plaintiff’s right to due process and his rights under
the Sixth Amendment by allegedly denying Plaintiff a fair trial. Plaintiff also claims Defendant Green
committed “perjury”. ECF No. 33, p. 4. Plaintiff states on October 31, 2022, at a Denno hearing in
his underlying criminal proceedings in State Court, Green testified 	that ten body cameras
malfunctioned and were not working, but that Green’s report of May 25, 2022, only noted that Green’s
body camera was allegedly inoperable. Id. Plaintiff alleges “at the direction of prosecuting attorney
David Harrod” Green committed perjury at the Denno hearing by allegedly lying about “every single
body camera malfunctioning and not working.” Id. at p. 5. Plaintiff claims he requested body camera
Case 1:23-cv-01064-SOH Document 41 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
footage as exculpatory evidence and that Green, by stating that all the body cameras were not
working, allegedly deprived Plaintiff of a fair and impartial jury trial.
Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ramirez violated his Fifth Amendment rights when he coerced a
confession from Plaintiff, committed perjury, denied Plaintiff a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment,
and was responsible for a Brady violation under the Fourteenth Amendment. ECF No. 33, p. 6.
Plaintiff claims Ramirez advised Plaintiff while under arrest, that the crime Plaintiff committed was
tape recorded and stated to the Plaintiff that he might as well confess. Id. Plaintiff claims he was
heavily intoxicated at the time and Ramirez was urging Plaintiff to incriminate himself. Id. Plaintiff
then alleges at the Denno hearing in State Circuit Court, Ramirez testified he did not recall making
the statement to Plaintiff and that he left his body camera at home, presumably on the date of the
arrest. Then, Plaintiff claims he received the body camera footage from the arrest from the Prosecuting
Attorney in April of 2023 – before Plaintiff pled guilty. See footnote 2, supra. Plaintiff claims he gave
a coerced confession to Ramirez on the night of the underlying arrest and that Plaintiff was “under
the influence.” Id. He claims Deputy Ramirez violated Brady by not giving the tape to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff sues Defendant Gallegos for allegedly violating Plaintiff’s rights under the Sixth
Amendment by denying him a fair trial and committing perjury. Id. at p. 7. Plaintiff claims Gallegos
lied under oath about a sound on the confession recording. Id. at p. 8. He claims the tape was edited
(though Plaintiff does not identify who allegedly edited the recording) and that the tape had favorable
information which would have supported Plaintiff’s defenses to the criminal charges. Id.
Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss arguing his claims in the Second Amended
Complaint are barred by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey because
Plaintiff pled guilty and was sentenced to five years in prison in his underlying criminal case, and this
Case 1:23-cv-01064-SOH Document 41 Filed 12/16/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
conviction has not been overturned by an appellate court or otherwise resolved in Plaintiff’s favor.
ECF Nos. 33, 34. Plaintiff filed a Response stating in part:
…Plaintiff acknowledges the Defendants Attorney Michael A. Mosley correctly cites
Heck v. Humprey in regards to two of the Defendants specifically Defendant Andy
Green and Defendant Anthony Gallegos. However the Defendants’ Attorney is
incorrect in regards to Defendant Jose L. Ramirez. Accordingly the Plaintiff is willing
to dismiss the Complaints only against Defendants Andy Green because Deputy Green
admitted initially whatever is in that report is what happened that night…In regards to
Deputy Gallegos there is no proof he altered the recording, so it is only appropriate the
complaint against him should be dismissed.
However Defendant Jose L. Ramirez directly lied under cross examination about
positively leaving his body camera at home on May 25 th , 2022 yet months later the
Prosecutor turns over footage of Deputy Ramirez’s body cam footage. It is clear
deputy Ramirez lied about leaving his body camera at home and was wearing it that
night. Therefore it is clear Defendant Deputy Jose L. Ramirex lied and committed
perjury about stating “the crime the Plaintiff committed was on tape, these no way
you’re 	going 	to 	beat 	the 	tape 	you 	might 	as 	well 	go 	ahead 	and 	give 	the
confession…therefore he was compelled to be a witness against himself in violation
of the 5 th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
ECF No. 37, pp. 2-4.
II. 	Applicable Law:
When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, a federal
district court should accept the allegations contained in the complaint as true. See Young v. City of St.
Charles, Missouri, 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 2001). Further, any reasonable inferences from the
complaint are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. A motion to dismiss is properly granted
when, based on the plaintiff's own allegations, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. 	See Young, 244 F.3d at 627. “Though pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, see Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), they still must allege sufficient facts to support the claims
advanced.” Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a claim seeking
damages for “allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by
Case 1:23-cv-01064-SOH Document 41 Filed 12/16/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid” is not cognizable until
“the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal
court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. The Court noted that if a
successful claim would not demonstrate the invalidity of an outstanding criminal judgment, it should
be allowed to proceed. Id. at p. 487.
III. 	Discussion:
The only issue before this Court is whether Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit are barred by
Heck v. Humphrey. A review of Plaintiff’s underlying state court criminal docket shows he filed a
Notice of Appeal of his conviction and sentence on October 7, 2024. Then on October 17, 2024, a
Notice of Appeal and Designation of Record appealing Plaintiff’s conviction and sentence to the
Arkansas Court of Appeals was filed by Vicki Lucas, Plaintiff’s appellate counsel. Then on October
18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pro se Motion for Reconsideration of the State court’s order denying
Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.2F
3
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants false testimony and his coerced confession were key to
the criminal case against him as he seeks to have this Court dismiss the state criminal charges and
conviction. Thus, any finding by this Court that Defendants’ testimony and behavior were untruthful
and unlawful would directly affect the validity of his state court conviction. See Williams v. Schario,
93 F.3d 527, 529 (8 th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (false testimony and malicious prosecution claims are
Heck-barred as they necessarily imply invalidity of conviction or sentence).
3 Notice of Appeal and Designation of Record, October 17, 2024, https://caseinfonew.arcourts.gov/opad/case/06CR-
22-25 (accessed December 12, 2024).
Case 1:23-cv-01064-SOH Document 41 Filed 12/16/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Moreover, Plaintiff pled guilty, and he has not alleged that his conviction was reversed,
expunged, declared invalid or called into question. See United States v. Salean, 583 F.3d 1059, 1061
n. 3 (8 th Cir. 2009) (any guilty plea results in a conviction); Carmi v. City of St. Ann, Missouri, 22
Fed.Appx. 674, 675 (8th Cir. 2001) (guilty plea extinguished arrest and search claims); Havens v.
Johnson, 783 F.3d 776, 784 (10 th Cir. 2015) (“the Heck doctrine derives from the existence of a valid
conviction not the mechanism by which the conviction was obtained”).
Plaintiff’s conviction and sentence have not been overturned or terminated in Plaintiff’s favor.
As previously stated, Plaintiff is in the beginning stages of an appeal to the Arkansas Court of Appeals
and there is a Motion for Reconsideration pending in his state criminal case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants are barred by the Heck doctrine.
IV. 	Conclusion:
For these reasons, the Court recommends Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34) be
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s case be dismissed, without prejudice.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 	The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 16th day of December 2024.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-01064-SOH Document 41 Filed 12/16/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>