Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-60818/USCOURTS-ca5-03-60818-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lorance Lumpkin
Appellee
Claiborne McDonald
Appellee
Thomas Schwartz
Appellee
Sheriffs Department
Appellee
Steven Stanley
Appellant
Joe Stuart
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60818

Summary Calendar

 

STEVEN STANLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOE STUART; LORANCE LUMPKIN; CLAIBORNE

MCDONALD; THOMAS SCHWARTZ; SHERIFFS 

DEPARTMENT, Pearl River County,

 Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:03-CV-644-GRo

--------------------

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steven Stanley, Mississippi prisoner # R5821, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. He

concedes that the majority of his claims are barred by Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), but he maintains that the district

court wrongly dismissed his action with prejudice. The “preferred

 Case: 03-60818 Document: 0051617691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2004
G:\opin-sc\03-60818.opn.wpd 2

order of dismissal” under Heck, which was used by the district

court, dismisses barred claims “with prejudice to their being

asserted again until the Heck conditions are met.” Johnson v.

McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996).

Stanley also asserts that the district court wrongly dismissed

pursuant to Heck his challenges to the improper seizure of his

personal property. To the extent that Stanley is raising a

substantive due process claim, the issue would arise under the

Fourth Amendment and Stanley is challenging actions taken at the

time of his arrest, which may call into question the validity of

his conviction. See Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.

1995). To the extent that Stanley is arguing that the defendants

denied him procedural due process through the unauthorized seizure

of his personal property, the claims are barred by the

Parratt/Hudson doctrine. See Sheppard v. Louisiana Bd. of Parole,

873 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir. 1989). The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-60818 Document: 0051617691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2004