Gray v. Skalla

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 20, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-4158
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LINWOOD GRAY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-4158 (UNA) ) A.U.S.A. BARBARA S. SKALLA, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

Memorandum Opinion

Plaintiff brings this action against three Assistant United States Attorneys who prosecuted

the criminal case against him in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. See

ECF No. 1 at 3. He alleges that Defendants “deliberately fabricated incriminating evidence” for

the purpose of securing an indictment and “to criminally charge and prosecute” him, engaged in

the “knowing presentation of perjured testimony,” and “obstructed justice.” Id. at 1, 3–4. Plaintiff

seeks declaratory relief and compensatory and punitive damages for alleged violations of his due

process rights. See id. at 1–2.

The Supreme Court has held that “to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render

a conviction or sentence invalid,” a civil plaintiff “must prove that the conviction or sentence has

been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal

authorized to make such determination, 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). And the D.C. Circuit

has held that this constraint on damages actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “applies equally to claims

against federal officials in Bivens actions.” Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

1 (per curiam). It also applies to claims for declaratory relief. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74,

81–82 (2005).

Because Plaintiff’s success here “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction,”

Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, and he has not shown that his conviction or sentence has been reversed or

otherwise invalidated, his claims “are not cognizable unless and until he meets the requirements

of Heck,” Harris v. Fulwood, 611 F. App’x 1, 2 (D.C. Cir. 2015); see Gowadia v. Internal Revenue

Serv., 87 F. Supp. 3d 188, 190 (D.D.C. 2015) (“Because Plaintiff’s convictions have not been

invalidated in any prior proceeding, Heck bars this suit.”); Poynter v. Russo, No. 13-cv-1129, 2013

WL 4052784, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2013) (dismissing case sua sponte under Heck where plaintiff

did not establish conviction had been overturned).

For these reasons, the court grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,

ECF No. 2, and dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A separate order accompanies this memorandum

opinion.

/s/ AMIR H. ALI DATE: April 20, 2026 United States District Judge