Poston v. Shappert

Fourth Circuit

Poston v. Shappert

222 F. App'x 301

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 30, 2007

Docket06-8052

StatusUnpublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 222 F. App'x 301 (Poston v. Shappert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Poston v. Shappert, 222 F. App'x 301 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Shaun Autaleon Poston appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

As found by the district court, Poston’s complaint raises challenges to his underlying criminal conviction. Because Poston has made no showing that his conviction has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid by a state court, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, we find that his claims are not cognizable under § 1983 or under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (2000). See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 26-27 & n. 1 (5th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (applying holding in Heck to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claim). To the extent that Poston’s claims against the federal defendants could be construed as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), we find that these claims are also barred by the rationale set forth by the Supreme Court in Heck. See Stephenson, 28 F.3d at 27.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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.

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

PER CURIAM:

Shaun Autaleon Poston appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

As found by the district court, Poston’s complaint raises challenges to his underlying criminal conviction. Because Poston has made no showing that his conviction has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid by a state court, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, we find that his claims are not cognizable under § 1983 or under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (2000). See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 26-27 & n. 1 (5th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (applying holding in Heck to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claim). To the extent that Poston’s claims against the federal defendants could be construed as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), we find that these claims are also barred by the rationale set forth by the Supreme Court in Heck. See Stephenson, 28 F.3d at 27.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 F. App'x 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poston-v-shappert-ca4-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack