Case ID: f-appx_200/html/0307-01.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

Patrick Jeroid JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim WHITE; Detective Steve Shelley; Detective Kelley Banks; Fnu Wiser, Sergeant; Officer Tommie McElheney, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-40325
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 13, 2006.
    Patrick Jones, Gatesville, TX, pro se.
    Brandon Craig Cogburn, Atchley, Russell, Waldrop & Hlavinka, Texarkana, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Patrick Jeroid Jones, Texas prisoner #935352, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). In his complaint, Jones alleged that the defendants conducted an illegal search resulting in the seizure of evidence used to secure his conviction.

In order to recover damages for harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the validity of the conviction or sentence has been called into question or that the conviction and sentence has been reversed or otherwise set aside. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364. If a favorable judgment on an illegal search claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of the plaintiffs conviction, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims must be dismissed pursuant to Heck. See Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir.1995).

Jones’s allegations do not clearly reflect whether a favorable judgment on his illegal arrest claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. Nevertheless, Jones does not allege an actual, compensable injury under Heck for purposes of § 1983 other than the injury of conviction. See id. The district court therefore did not err by dismissing the complaint, but the judgment should be modified to reflect a dismissal without prejudice. See Price v. City of San Antonio, 431 F.3d 890, 895 (5th Cir.2005).

Jones also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for default judgment. The record shows that the defendants properly complied with the court’s order. There is no merit to this argument.

The district court’s dismissal of Jones’s § 1983 complaint counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Jones is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED as modified; all outstanding motions are DENIED. 
      
       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.