Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03173/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03173-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3173

___________

William Rogers, Jr. *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Jason Adams, Officer, #1195, sued in * Appeal from the United States

individual and official capacities; * District Court for the

Chad Staley, Officer, #1219, sued in * District of Nebraska

individual and official capacities; *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees, *

*

Amy Jacobsen, sued in individual and *

official capacities; John Colborn, sued *

in individual and official capacities, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

Submitted: May 31, 2004

 Filed: July 6, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 03-3173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2004 Entry ID: 1784530 
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Nebraska. 

-2-

William Rogers, a Nebraska inmate, appeals from the final judgment entered

in the District Court1

 for the District of Nebraska granting summary judgment to

defendant police officers Chad Staley and Jason Adams in Rogers’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action. For reversal, Rogers argues his claims were not barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional

conviction or imprisonment, § 1983 plaintiff must prove conviction or sentence has

been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question). For the reasons

discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. See Hill v. Scott, 349 F.3d

1068, 1071 (8th Cir. 2003). We agree with the district court that Rogers’s success on

claims that the officers falsified police reports and provided false information at a

probable cause hearing would imply the invalidity of his conviction for drug

possession. We thus conclude that Heck bars these claims, even if Rogers’s time for

filing a state postconviction motion has passed. See Cunningham v. Gates, 312 F.3d

1148, 1153 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting Heck barred § 1983 claims despite fact that

habeas relief was time-barred), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 960 (2003). We also conclude

the record shows there was no delay between Rogers’s arrest for drug possession and

the ensuing probable cause hearing, as both occurred on the same date. See County

of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56-57 (1991) (noting judicial probable

cause determination should generally be made within 48 hours of warrantless arrest).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3173 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2004 Entry ID: 1784530