Irby v. Wallace

32 F. App'x 117

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 16, 2002
• Docket: 01-7728
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

William John Irby appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants Holton and Wallace’s motion to dismiss and dismissing the remainder of Irby’s 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 (West Supp.2001) complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (West Supp.2001). We affirm the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss as to Holton because Irby dropped all charges against Holton in his amended complaint. We vacate the remainder of the district court’s order because we conclude that the district court erred in finding that Irby’s claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364,129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

Irby pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). United States v. Irby, No. 98-4498, 1999 WL 31105 (4th Cir.1999) (unpublished). Irby now claims that the police unlawfully seized personal property, such as jewelry and computer equipment, from his residence and a storage facility subsequent to his arrest. He alleges that this property was not connected to his drug offenses. We conclude that Irby successfully could prosecute this claim and still have a perfectly valid conviction. The Supreme Court has stated that where “the district court determines that the plaintiffs action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to the suit.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. As an example, the Court noted that certain claims based on Fourth Amendment violations do not necessarily invalidate a conviction and are therefore not barred by Heck. Id. at 487 n. 7; see also Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178, 182-83 (4th Cir.1996) (discussing the Fourth Amendment exception to Heck); cf. also Prosise v. Haring, 667 F.2d 1133, 1141 (4th Cir.1981) (holding that a judgment based upon a guilty plea does not have preclusive effect in a § 1983 action alleging a Fourth Amendment violation).

Accordingly, we vacate the remainder of the district court’s order and remand for further consideration based on our finding that the prosecution of Irby’s claim would not necessarily invalidate his conviction. We express no opinion as to the proper ultimate disposition of Irby’s claims. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.