Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08102/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08102-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Farmville
Appellee
Farmville Police Department
Appellee
Farmville Sheriff Department
Appellee
Office of the Commonwealth Attorney
Appellee
Prince Edward County
Appellee
State of Virginia
Appellee
Dave Andrae Taylor
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8102

DAVE ANDRAE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF FARMVILLE; FARMVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; FARMVILLE 

SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; STATE OF VIRGINIA; PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY; 

OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-00963-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: July 8, 2010 Decided: August 12, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dave Andrae Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8102 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/12/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Dave Andrae Taylor, a federal prisoner, filed a 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) seeking damages on 

the ground that Defendants failed to advise him at the time of 

his arrest in February 1999 of his rights under Article 36 of 

the Vienna Convention. The district court dismissed the action 

without prejudice, concluding that Taylor’s action was barred by 

the holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). We have 

reviewed the record and the district court’s order and conclude 

that pursuant to Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006), 

the action was not barred by the holding in Heck. Accordingly, 

we vacate the district court’s order dismissing Taylor’s action 

without prejudice and remand for further proceedings consistent 

with this opinion. We deny Taylor’s motion for appointment of 

counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Appeal: 09-8102 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/12/2010 Pg: 2 of 2