Lewis v. Donahue

Second Circuit

Lewis v. Donahue

241 F. App'x 776

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 19, 2007

DocketNo. 06-2800-cv

StatusPublished

This text of 241 F. App'x 776 (Lewis v. Donahue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewis v. Donahue, 241 F. App'x 776 (2d Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Melvin Lewis appeals from a June 6, 2006 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.) denying his motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint sua sponte. We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir.2001).

The district court properly held that Lewis’s malicious prosecution claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (“[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.”). To the extent that Heck arguably does not invalidate his false arrest and false imprisonment claims, see Perez v. Sifel, 57 F.3d 503, 505 (7th Cir.1995), these claims are precluded by the rules of collateral estoppel and res judicata. See Johnson v. Watkins, 101 F.3d 792, 794-95 (2d Cir.1996).

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant’s motion for compensation and punitive damages is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Melvin Lewis appeals from a June 6, 2006 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.) denying his motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint sua sponte. We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir.2001).

The district court properly held that Lewis’s malicious prosecution claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (“[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.”). To the extent that Heck arguably does not invalidate his false arrest and false imprisonment claims, see Perez v. Sifel, 57 F.3d 503, 505 (7th Cir.1995), these claims are precluded by the rules of collateral estoppel and res judicata. See Johnson v. Watkins, 101 F.3d 792, 794-95 (2d Cir.1996).

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant’s motion for compensation and punitive damages is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 F. App'x 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-donahue-ca2-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack