LOPEZ v. CITY OF LEHIGH COUNTY

Opinion

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GEORGE IVAN LOPEZ, : Plaintiff, : : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-CV-4388 : CITY OF LEHIGH COUNTY, et al. : Defendants. :

ORDER AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2022, upon consideration of George Ivan Lopez’s pro se Complaint (ECF No. 2), it is ORDERED that: 1. For the reasons discussed in the Court’s Memorandum, Lopez’s Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as follows: a. Lopez’s claims seeking injunctive relief are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as barred by Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). b. Lopez’s claims seeking money damages are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). c. Lopez is not granted leave to file an amended complaint in this matter.1 2. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gerald J. Pappert GERALD J. PAPPERT, J.

1 The dismissal is without prejudice to Lopez reasserting any claim for habeas corpus relief in an appropriate petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Lopez may file a new civil case for money damages only in the event his underlying conviction is reversed, vacated, or otherwise