Case ID: f-appx_535/html/0537-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wade Charles HEIDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN DEPUTY CLERK; Hamilton County Clerks Office; Hamilton County, Iowa, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-2837.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 22, 2013.
    Filed: Oct. 23, 2013.
    Wade Charles Heiden, pro se.
    Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Charles Heiden, a federal inmate, appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing his pro se complaint prior to service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Heiden alleged that a state-court deputy clerk improperly signed a document on behalf of a state-court judge, and that, as a consequence, Heiden received an invalid conviction and sentence in federal court. Upon careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (noting de novo review of § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissals), we agree with the District Court that Heiden failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (noting that a plaintiffs obligation to provide grounds for relief requires more than labels and conclusions; a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.