HEARD

v.

DESANTIS

N.D. Fla. | 2022-12-02

No. 37

District Court, N.D. Florida (2022)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court held that the plaintiff's civil-rights action must be dismissed because the relief sought would necessarily imply the invalidity of his current confinement.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff filed a civil-rights action seeking damages and restoration of gain-time credits. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal under Heck v. H…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Heck V. Humphrey

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Heck V. Humphrey cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 37) docketed October 18, 2022. The magistrate judge recommends that this civil-rights action be dismissed pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey because it

“necessarily impl[ies] that [Plaintiff’s] current confinement is invalid and that he is entitled to immediate or speedier release from confinement.” Plaintiff has filed objections (ECF No. 41) to the report and recommendation.

Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint after this case was remanded from the Eleventh Circuit with instructions to grant Heard leave to amend his complaint because “a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim” for damages as to six of Plaintiff’s eleven claims. See ECF No. 25, 11th Cir. Opin. at p. 6. Relying on Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994)1, the magistrate judge has concluded that Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint must be dismissed because granting him relief2 on any of his claims “necessarily would imply that his current confinement is invalid and that he is entitled to immediate or speedier release from confinement.” ECF No. 37 at 8. The undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge’s assessment of Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 37) is

ADOPTED and incorporated into this order by reference. 2. Doyle Heard’s fourth amended complaint is DISMISSED.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: “All claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).”

4. The clerk shall close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of December , 2022.

s/ William Stafford

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Footnotes

1 In Heck v. Humphrey, the Supreme Court held that “in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” 512 U.S. at 486–87 (footnote omitted). 2 As noted by the magistrate judge, Plaintiff seeks the following relief: “[R]estoration, return of all gain-time credits accrued and withheld under the misapplied “Reform Act” and “fraudulently” altered, cancelled; totaling more than (25) years, compensation for each day belonging to [Heard], stolen, withheld; compensation deemed just, equitable and appropriate, as established.” ECF No. 35, 4th amend. compl. at 7 (errors in original).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw

HEARD v. DESANTIS