Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_06-cv-04070/USCOURTS-arwd-4_06-cv-04070-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theardis Early
Defendant
Brandon Montgomery
Plaintiff

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

BRANDON MONTGOMERY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-4070 

OFFICER THEARDIS EARLY DEFENDANT

ORDER

This is a civil rights action filed by the plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff

proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. At the time the complaint was filed, plaintiff was

incarcerated in the Lafayette County Jail. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A the court has the obligation to screen any complaint in

which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). On review, the court is to dismiss the complaint, or

any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). 

Montgomery contends he was unlawfully arrested in Louisiana and brought back to

Arkansas to face criminal charges. As relief, he seeks dismissal of the pending criminal charges.

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994), the

Supreme Court held that a claim for damages for "allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a

conviction or sentence invalid" is not cognizable until "the conviction or sentence has been

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

authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of

a writ of habeas corpus." Heck, 512 U.S. 486-87.

Case 4:06-cv-04070-HFB Document 5 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

The rationale of Heck has been applied to § 1983 complaints filed while the criminal charges

are pending. See e.g., Smith v. Holtz, 87 F.3d 108, 113 (3d Cir. 1996). In Smith, the Third Circuit

stated:

We find that [the Heck] concerns apply equally to claims that, if successful, would

necessarily imply the invalidity of a future conviction on a pending criminal charge.

A claim by a defendant in an ongoing criminal prosecution which necessarily

challenges the legality of a future conviction on a pending criminal charge lies at the

intersection of the federal habeas corpus statute and the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

If such a claim could proceed while criminal proceedings are ongoing, there would

be a potential for inconsistent determinations in the civil and criminal cases and the

criminal defendant would be able to collaterally attack the prosecution in a civil suit.

In terms of the conflicts which Heck sought to avoid, there is no difference between

a conviction which is outstanding at the time the civil rights action is instituted and

a potential conviction on a pending charge that may be entered at some point

thereafter.

Smith, 87 F.3d at 113.

To the extent Montgomery’s complaint can be read as seeking release from incarceration,

such relief is not available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presier v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-90,

93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973). Instead, Montgomery must bring a habeas petition after

exhaustion of his state remedies. Id. 

For the reasons stated, this case is not presently cognizable under § 1983. The case is

hereby dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of October 2006.

/s/ Harry F. Barnes 

 HON. HARRY F. BARNES 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-04070-HFB Document 5 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>