District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby
Despite dismissing plaintiff state inmate’s May 26, 2017, pro se complaint under 42 USC §1983—seeking a determination of the length of a court imposed sentence and post-release supervision—for failure to state a cause of action, district court gave plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint claimed he was held in custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) under an illegal sentence and commitment order. The court concluded that only plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against defendant Annucci in his official capacity survived sua sponte review and required a response. Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against defendants in their individual capacities was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, because, as with his original complaint, plaintiff’s amended complaint contained no facts plausibly suggesting that his conviction had been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Also, as relief declaring his confinement by DOCCS illegal would implicate the validity of his sentence, plaintiff’s declaratory relief claims were also barred under Heck v. Humphrey.