Webb v. McClung

E.D. Arkansas

Webb v. McClung

DecidedMarch 31, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-00146

StatusUnknown

This text of Webb v. McClung (Webb v. McClung) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Webb v. McClung, (E.D. Ark. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

EDDIE WEBB ADC #108350 PLAINTIFF

No. 3:22-cv-146-DPM

BLAINE MCCLUNG, Officer, Corning Police Department DEFENDANT ORDER 1. The Court screened Webb’s complaint and determined that he sufficiently pleaded Fourth Amendment claim against Officer McClung. Doc. 3. Officer McClung now moves to dismiss. 2. | Webb says Officer McClung unlawfully searched his phone. He acknowledges—and a public record search confirms — that in June 2022, he pleaded guilty to the unlawful use of a communication device arising from this incident and was sentenced to 96 months incarceration. State v. Webb, 11CCR-20-62 (Corning District Court). Officer McClung argues that judgment Webb’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of that conviction, meaning the case should be dismissed. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). 3. The Court cannot, on the present record, find that Webb’s claims are Heck-barred. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7; Cooney v. Arkansas, 2022 WL 288143, at *1 (8th Cir. 2022) (unpublished per curiam). Some aspects of the case are limited by Heck. Webb, for example,

cannot recover damages for “the injury of being convicted and imprisoned.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7. But he seeks damages for the alleged invasion of his privacy. Compare Hamner v. Mannis, 2022 WL 17833181, at *1 (E.D. Ark. 21 December 2022); Kaczmarek v. Butler, 2023 WL 2319309, at*6 (W.D. Ark. 11 January 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 2317786 (W.D. Ark. 1 March 2023). A judgment in his favor on his privacy claim would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. He also seeks damages related to his pre-plea incarceration. It is a closer question whether any such damages are recoverable so long as Webb’s conviction stands— a question the Court leaves for another day on a more complete record. Parker v. Matthews, 2003 WL = 21976505 (8thCir. 2003) (unpublished per curiam). For now, Webb may therefore proceed with his wrongful-search claim against McClung.

Motion to dismiss, Doc. 8, denied without prejudice. Motion to stay discovery, Doc. 14, also denied. An Initial Scheduling Order will issue. So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 3/ “Worch 2023

_2-

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

EDDIE WEBB ADC #108350 PLAINTIFF

No. 3:22-cv-146-DPM

BLAINE MCCLUNG, Officer, Corning Police Department DEFENDANT ORDER 1. The Court screened Webb’s complaint and determined that he sufficiently pleaded Fourth Amendment claim against Officer McClung. Doc. 3. Officer McClung now moves to dismiss. 2. | Webb says Officer McClung unlawfully searched his phone. He acknowledges—and a public record search confirms — that in June 2022, he pleaded guilty to the unlawful use of a communication device arising from this incident and was sentenced to 96 months incarceration. State v. Webb, 11CCR-20-62 (Corning District Court). Officer McClung argues that judgment Webb’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of that conviction, meaning the case should be dismissed. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). 3. The Court cannot, on the present record, find that Webb’s claims are Heck-barred. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7; Cooney v. Arkansas, 2022 WL 288143, at *1 (8th Cir. 2022) (unpublished per curiam). Some aspects of the case are limited by Heck. Webb, for example,

cannot recover damages for “the injury of being convicted and imprisoned.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7. But he seeks damages for the alleged invasion of his privacy. Compare Hamner v. Mannis, 2022 WL 17833181, at *1 (E.D. Ark. 21 December 2022); Kaczmarek v. Butler, 2023 WL 2319309, at*6 (W.D. Ark. 11 January 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 2317786 (W.D. Ark. 1 March 2023). A judgment in his favor on his privacy claim would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. He also seeks damages related to his pre-plea incarceration. It is a closer question whether any such damages are recoverable so long as Webb’s conviction stands— a question the Court leaves for another day on a more complete record. Parker v. Matthews, 2003 WL = 21976505 (8thCir. 2003) (unpublished per curiam). For now, Webb may therefore proceed with his wrongful-search claim against McClung.

Motion to dismiss, Doc. 8, denied without prejudice. Motion to stay discovery, Doc. 14, also denied. An Initial Scheduling Order will issue. So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 3/ “Worch 2023

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Webb v. McClung, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webb-v-mcclung-ared-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack