Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0354-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Warren M. WALLACE, Individually; as Natural Tutor of Z. W. W., a Minor Child; Joshua W. Wallace, Individually; as Natural Tutor of Z. W. W., a Minor Child; Matthew W. Wallace, Individually; as Natural Tutor of Z. W. W., a Minor Child; Devyn A. Craddock, Individually; as Natural Tutor of Z. W. W., a Minor Child; Raynell B. Wallace, Individually; as Natural Tutor of Z. W. W., a Minor Child; Jilliun R. Wallace, Individually; as Natural Tutor of R. W., a Minor Child, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SLIDELL CITY; Randy Smith, Individually; in his official capacity; Thomas McNulty, Individually; in his official capacity; Keith McQueen, Individually; in his official capacity; Kevin Rea, Individually; in his official capacity; Charles Esque, Individually; in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees
    No. 16-30485
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 12/19/2016
    Joseph M. Bruno, Daniel Adam Meyer, Bruno & Bruno, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Lawrence E. Abbott, Esq., Sarah Perkins Reid, Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The dismissal at issue, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), centers on the application of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (precluding civil actions that “necessarily imply the invalidity of [a] conviction or sentence”). Our having considered the briefs and oral argument in our court, as well as the pertinent parts of the record, including the operative complaint, the dismissal was proper, essentially for the reasons stated by the district court. Wallace v. City of Slidell, La., No. 2:15-cv-383, 2016 WL 1223065 (E.D. La. 28 Mar. 2016).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.