Kenneth L. Taylor v. Jeannie L. Denniston

Eighth Circuit

Kenneth L. Taylor v. Jeannie L. Denniston

111 F. App'x 864

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 10, 2004

Docket04-1346

StatusUnpublished

This text of 111 F. App'x 864 (Kenneth L. Taylor v. Jeannie L. Denniston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kenneth L. Taylor v. Jeannie L. Denniston, 111 F. App'x 864 (8th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas prisoner Kenneth Taylor (Taylor) appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of defendants’ alleged denial of his Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and forgery of his name on documents. Taylor claimed violations of his civil rights. Taylor seeks to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (IFP).

After careful review of the record, we conclude Taylor’s FOIA claim is not cognizable under section 1983 because it implicates only state law. See Walker v. Reed, 104 F.3d 156, 157 (8th Cir.1997) (to state cognizable claim under § 1983, plaintiff must allege defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived plaintiff of right, privilege, or immunity secured by constitution or laws of United States). As to the forgery, to the extent Taylor is advancing more than a state-law claim of forgery per se and is claiming his conviction was obtained fraudulently through forgery, such a claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (claims for monetary damages that call into question lawfulness of conviction or confinement are not cognizable under § 1983 unless conviction or sentence is overturned).

Accordingly, we grant IFP status on appeal and affirm, but we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice so Taylor may pursue whatever remedies may be available to him in state court.

1

. The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas prisoner Kenneth Taylor (Taylor) appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of defendants’ alleged denial of his Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and forgery of his name on documents. Taylor claimed violations of his civil rights. Taylor seeks to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (IFP).

After careful review of the record, we conclude Taylor’s FOIA claim is not cognizable under section 1983 because it implicates only state law. See Walker v. Reed, 104 F.3d 156, 157 (8th Cir.1997) (to state cognizable claim under § 1983, plaintiff must allege defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived plaintiff of right, privilege, or immunity secured by constitution or laws of United States). As to the forgery, to the extent Taylor is advancing more than a state-law claim of forgery per se and is claiming his conviction was obtained fraudulently through forgery, such a claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (claims for monetary damages that call into question lawfulness of conviction or confinement are not cognizable under § 1983 unless conviction or sentence is overturned).

Accordingly, we grant IFP status on appeal and affirm, but we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice so Taylor may pursue whatever remedies may be available to him in state court.

1

. The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F. App'x 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-l-taylor-v-jeannie-l-denniston-ca8-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack