Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30301/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30301-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mike Fendall
Appellee
Richwood Correctional Center
Appellee
Warden
Appellee
Clyde Wyatt
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30301

Summary Calendar

CLYDE WYATT,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

RICHWOOD CORRECTIONAL CENTER; WARDEN, Richwood Correctional 

Center; MIKE FENDALL,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:14-CV-2362

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clyde Wyatt, former Louisiana prisoner # 995274, brought a civil rights 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he was subjected to malicious 

prosecution and illegal arrest when he was transferred from one correctional 

facility to another pursuant to an illegal warrant and without probable cause 

and that he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure when, in the course 

 

* 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

February 12, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30301 Document: 00513379568 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2016
No. 15-30301

2

of that transfer, an official examined his property and took some of it. He 

further asserted that officials manipulated and fabricated evidence against 

him and that his constitutional rights were violated during his criminal 

proceedings, but he admitted that he eventually pleaded guilty to theft. He 

also alleged that the defendants are liable for defamation because, when 

prospective employers run background checks on Wyatt, they turn up 

outstanding warrants on charges for which he denies guilt.

The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 

§ 1915A and dismissed it as for frivolous and for failure to state a claim on the 

grounds that all of Wyatt’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 

477 (1994), and that, as to the defamation claims, Wyatt had not identified any 

information in his background checks that was false. We review the district 

court’s ruling de novo. Green v. Atkinson, 623 F.3d 278, 280 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Under Heck, a plaintiff in a § 1983 action may not recover damages for an 

“allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm 

caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence 

invalid,” unless he proves “that the conviction or sentence has been reversed 

on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state 

tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a 

federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87

According to Wyatt, the rule in Heck does not apply to his § 1983 action 

because he had not yet been convicted or sentenced at the time he filed suit. 

He is mistaken. Where a plaintiff files a § 1983 action when a criminal 

proceeding is pending against him, the district court may dismiss the § 1983 

action if he is later convicted and his claims call into question the validity of 

that conviction. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007). 

 Case: 15-30301 Document: 00513379568 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2016
No. 15-30301

3

Wyatt also suggests that Heck does not apply where the plaintiff’s guilty

plea is “independent, distinct, separate, and not contested” in the civil rights 

action. Again, Wyatt misunderstands the rule laid out in Heck. The Heck bar 

applies in “a § 1983 action that does not seek damages directly attributable to 

conviction or confinement but whose successful prosecution would necessarily 

imply that the plaintiff’s criminal conviction was wrongful.” 512 U.S. at 486 

n.6. The district court determined that if Wyatt received a favorable judgment, 

it would, indeed, “necessarily implicate the validity of his conviction and 

sentence.” Wyatt does not say how this finding is erroneous or explain how 

success on his § 1983 claims would not call into question the legitimacy of his 

conviction for theft. 

Finally, Wyatt has not addressed the district court’s finding that he 

failed to identify any information in his background checks that was false. 

Accordingly, he has abandoned the issue, and we decline to address it. See 

Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987). 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Wyatt’s motions for the

appointment of counsel and relief from an outstanding warrant are DENIED.

 Case: 15-30301 Document: 00513379568 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/12/2016