Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-30485/USCOURTS-ca5-16-30485-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Devyn A. Craddock
Appellant
Charles Esque
Appellee
Thomas McNulty
Appellee
Keith McQueen
Appellee
Kevin Rea
Appellee
Slidell City
Appellee
Randy Smith
Appellee
Jilliun R. Wallace
Appellant
Joshua W. Wallace
Appellant
Matthew W. Wallace
Appellant
Raynell B. Wallace
Appellant
Warren M. Wallace
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30485

WARREN M. WALLACE, Individually; as Natural Tutor of Z. W. W., a Minor 

Child; JOSHUA W. WALLACE, Individually; as Natural Tutor of Z. W. W., a 

Minor Child; MATTHEW W. WALLACE, Individually; as Natural Tutor of Z. 

W. W., a Minor Child; DEVYN A. CRADDOCK, Individually; as Natural 

Tutor of Z. W. W., a Minor Child; RAYNELL B. WALLACE, Individually; as 

Natural Tutor of Z. W. W., a Minor Child; JILLIUN R. WALLACE, 

Individually; as Natural Tutor of R. W., a Minor Child, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

SLIDELL CITY; RANDY SMITH, Individually; in his official capacity; 

THOMAS MCNULTY, Individually; in his official capacity; KEITH 

MCQUEEN, Individually; in his official capacity; KEVIN REA, Individually; 

in his official capacity; CHARLES ESQUE, Individually; in his official 

capacity, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:15-CV-383

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 

* 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

December 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30485 Document: 00513802511 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2016
No. 16-30485

2

The dismissal at issue, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6), centers on the application of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487

(1994) (precluding civil actions that “necessarily imply the invalidity of [a] 

conviction or sentence”). Our having considered the briefs and oral argument 

in our court, as well as the pertinent parts of the record, including the operative 

complaint, the dismissal was proper, essentially for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Wallace v. City of Slidell, La., No. 2:15-cv-383, 2016 WL 1223065 

(E.D. La. 28 Mar. 2016).

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-30485 Document: 00513802511 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2016