IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-20052

Summary Calendar

REZA AHMADI,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; STATE OF TEXAS 

BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CV-2454

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reza Ahmadi, formerly Texas prisoner # 1713862, appeals the dismissal 

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and for failure to state a claim. He 

argues that his request for prospective injunctive relief is not barred by the 

Eleventh Amendment, that his sentence was invalidated by the district court’s 

 

* 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 4, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-20052 Document: 00514259005 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2017
No. 17-20052

2

dismissal of a prior 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application as moot, and that he identified 

every element necessary to state a cause of action under § 1983.

We review the district court’s Eleventh Amendment immunity 

determination de novo. Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492, 497 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Eleventh Amendment immunity applies “unless the suit falls within the 

narrow exception articulated by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Young,” 209 

U.S. 123 (1908). McKinley v. Abbott, 643 F.3d 403, 405 (5th Cir. 2011) (footnote 

omitted). The Young exception allows a private citizen to sue an individual in 

federal court for prospective injunctive relief based on allegations that the 

actor violated federal law. Id. at 406. Although Ahmadi asserts that he is 

entitled to prospective injunctive relief, he does not identify with particularity 

the relief sought or the basis therefor. Moreover, in light of Ahmadi’s release 

from prison, it is unclear what prospective injunctive relief he could be 

afforded. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 148-49 (1975). At bottom, 

Ahmadi is seeking monetary damages from the State based on his belief that 

he was unlawfully confined from July 2, 2012 to May 16, 2014. Because he is 

seeking monetary damages, his suit against the Director, in her official 

capacity, and the Board is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. K.P. v. 

LeBlanc, 627 F.3d 115, 124 (5th Cir. 2010); McKinley, 643 F.3d at 405-06.

In order to recover damages under § 1983 for an allegedly 

unconstitutional conviction or for harm caused by unlawful actions that would 

invalidate a conviction or sentence, a plaintiff must prove that the conviction 

or sentence has been overturned. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. A claim for 

damages related to a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated is 

not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487; see Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 

648 (1997). “Because an action attacking the validity of parole proceedings 

calls into question the fact and duration of confinement, it must satisfy the 

 Case: 17-20052 Document: 00514259005 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2017
No. 17-20052

3

Heck element.” McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 

(5th Cir. 1995) (footnote and citations omitted); see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 

544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005).

Contrary to Ahmadi’s assertions, the district court’s dismissal of his 

second habeas application as moot did not invalidate his sentence or his 

continued confinement; none of the claims raised therein were adjudicated on 

the merits. Furthermore, although Ahmadi was eventually granted release to 

mandatory supervision in May 2014, he has not demonstrated that the Board’s 

prior denials of such relief have been set aside for purposes of Heck. In light of 

Ahmadi’s failure to satisfy the requirements of Heck, the district court did not 

err by dismissing his claims against the Director on that ground. Because 

Ahmadi’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and Heck, we do not 

address the district court’s determination that Ahmadi failed to state a § 1983 

claim. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-20052 Document: 00514259005 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/04/2017