Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04003/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04003-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4003

___________

Timothy Collins, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Larry D. Bruns, FBI; Rick Sanders, *

MSHP, K9 Unit; Kevin Glaser, MSHP; * Appeal from the United States

Mark P. McClendon, MSHP; Brenda * District Court for the

Cone, MSHP; Mike Ahlford, Semo * Eastern District of Missouri.

DTF; Richard Couch, Semo DTF; *

Preston R. Neely, Semo DTF; Chris * [UNPUBLISHED]

Graves, MSHP; Scott Johnston, Semo *

DTF; Jason Ward, Dep. NMCS; *

William Cooper, MSHP; Jeff Heath, *

MSHP; Phil Gregory, MSHP; Drew *

Judan, DPS.SOG; Thomas L. Blades, *

Jr., FBI, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 23, 2006

Filed: July 13, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-4003 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2006 Entry ID: 2067244
-2-

Federal prisoner Timothy Collins (Collins) appeals the district court’s adverse

grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 action. Collins also

moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Leaving fee collection

to the district court, we grant Collins IFP status, and we reverse.

On May 3, 2003, federal and state agents searched Collins’s nightclub pursuant

to a search warrant, and seized evidence of cocaine-base distribution. Collins pled

guilty to distribution of cocaine base and was sentenced to 88 months in prison.

While serving this sentence, Collins filed the instant action for damages against agents

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Southeast Missouri Drug Task Force,

and the City of Sikeston Department of Public Safety, alleging the search of his

business was illegal because the search warrant was defective, in violation of the

Fourth Amendment and the Missouri Constitution. 

The district court concluded as a matter of law that Collins was precluded from

pursuing his Fourth Amendment claim under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-

87 (1994) (if judgment in plaintiff’s favor in § 1983 action for damages would

necessarily imply invalidity of conviction or sentence, claim is not cognizable until

conviction or sentence has been overturned). The court further concluded that

Collins’s guilty plea foreclosed his damages claim for any federal or state

constitutional claims arising out of the conviction, citing Williams v. Schario, 93 F.3d

527, 528-29 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam), Malady v. Crunk, 902 F.2d 10, 11 (8th Cir.

1990), United States v. Wray, 608 F.2d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 1979), and Hurse v. State,

527 S.W.2d 34, 36 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975). Summary judgment for defendants was

entered on September 9, 2005. 

On October 31, Collins filed a notice of appeal (NOA). Believing Collins had

only thirty days to appeal, the district court denied him leave to file the NOA out of

time. Because of the federal defendants, however, Collins had sixty days to appeal,

Appellate Case: 05-4003 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2006 Entry ID: 2067244
-3-

and this appeal is timely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (when United States or its

officer or agency is party, NOA may be filed within 60 days after entry of judgment).

Upon de novo review of the grant of summary judgment for defendants, see

Walker v. Bonenberger, 438 F.3d 884, 888 (8th Cir. 2006), we reverse. The district

court erred in concluding that the defective-search-warrant claim was categorically

barred by Heck, as success on this claim would not necessarily imply the invalidity

of Collins’s conviction. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7 (because of doctrines like

independent source, inevitable discovery, and harmless error, damages suit for

unreasonable search may lie even if challenged search produced evidence that was

introduced in state criminal trial resulting in § 1983 plaintiff’s still-outstanding

convictions); Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171-72 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

(noting footnote 7 and concluding § 1983 unlawful-seizure claim was not Heckbarred). The district court also erred in concluding Collins’s guilty plea was a

complete defense to his section 1983 action. The cases cited by the district court in

support of this proposition are distinguishable: the first two involve unlawful-arrest

claims, and the latter two apply in criminal proceedings. Collins’s conviction could

still stand even though the search warrant was defective and the resulting search and

seizure were unconstitutional. 

Accordingly, we reverse, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4003 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/13/2006 Entry ID: 2067244