Case ID: f-appx_6/html/0215-02.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

Crystal J. WOLFF; Jeffrey L. Wolff, Sr.; Jennifer K. Wolff, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Pamela GAMES-NEELY, Prosecutor; Greg Seifort, D.H.H.R. Worker; Jennell Sieglar, D.H.H.R. Worker; David Sanders, Judge; Dr. Parry, School Assistant Supervisor; Paul Lane, Esq.; David Foreman, Trooper; Burnice Weinstein, Prosecutor; Nancy Dalby, Guardian ad litem, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-2389.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2001.
    Decided March 30, 2001.
    Crystal J. Wolff, Jeffrey L. Wolff, Sr., Jennifer K. Wolff, pro se.
    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil rights complaint as frivolous. To the extent that Appellants’ complaint seeks the criminal prosecution of the named Defendants, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wolff v. Games-Neely, No. CA-00-67-3 (N.D.W.Va. Oct. 3, 2000). To the extent that Appellants seek money damages against the Defendants for their alleged wrongdoings, we note that the accusations leveled against the Defendants, if true, would undermine the validity of Appellant Jeffrey Wolffs criminal conviction. Accordingly, Wolff must first demonstrate that his conviction has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Accordingly, we affirm as modified to dismiss this claim without prejudice to the Appellants’ right to refile upon such a showing. We deny Appellants’ motion for a copy of a response to their informal brief, as no such response exists. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART.