Nelson v. Vilsack

Eighth Circuit

Nelson v. Vilsack

108 F. App'x 430

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 8, 2004

DocketNo. 04-1550

StatusPublished

This text of 108 F. App'x 430 (Nelson v. Vilsack) 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

Nelson v. Vilsack, 108 F. App'x 430 (8th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Donald Nelson (Nelson) appeals the district court’s¹ preservice dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record de novo, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam), we conclude the district court properly dismissed the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499-500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). However, we believe the dismissal should be without prejudice. See Sheldon v. Hundley, 83 F.3d 231, 234 (8th Cir.1996). Accordingly, we modify the district court’s judgment to be without prejudice, and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Nelson’s request for appointment of appellate counsel.

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

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Donald Nelson (Nelson) appeals the district court’s¹ preservice dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record de novo, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam), we conclude the district court properly dismissed the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499-500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). However, we believe the dismissal should be without prejudice. See Sheldon v. Hundley, 83 F.3d 231, 234 (8th Cir.1996). Accordingly, we modify the district court’s judgment to be without prejudice, and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Nelson’s request for appointment of appellate counsel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 F. App'x 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-vilsack-ca8-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack