Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06193/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06193-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6193

JEFFREY COHEN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ROD ROSENSTEIN, US Attorney; HARRY GRUBER, Asst. US 

Attorney; JOYCE MCDONALD, Asst. US Attorney,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:15-cv-00263-WDQ)

Submitted: June 11, 2015 Decided: June 25, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Cohen, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6193 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/25/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Brian Cohen appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice,* under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A

(2012), his suit against federal prosecutors brought pursuant to 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

The district court determined that Cohen’s complaint raised 

issues concerning the validity of the Government’s ongoing 

criminal case against Cohen and, thus, should be dismissed under 

the principles of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and its 

progeny. Because no final judgment of conviction has yet been 

entered, we conclude that the district court’s dismissal under 

Heck is premature. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 

(2007).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and 

remand for further proceedings in light of Wallace. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 * We have jurisdiction because Cohen cannot cure the defect 

identified in his complaint by mere amendment. See Domino Sugar 

Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 

(4th Cir. 1993).

Appeal: 15-6193 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/25/2015 Pg: 2 of 2