IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50786

Summary Calendar 

JOSHUA ADAM CONLAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant 

v. 

MICHAEL KING, Detective #4127, Austin Police Department; JOHN DOES 

1-5, Police Officers, Austin Police Department; BRANDON SHEFFY, Austin 

Police #4622; MICHAEL MURRAY, Austin Police #3656; SERGEANT FNU 

SULLIVAN, Austin Police #3547; SERGEANT FNU MOSTIA, Austin Police 

#3446; BRETT MAGILL, Austin Police #4951; CITY OF AUSTIN; COUNTY 

OF TRAVIS; JOHN DOES 1-3; TRAVIS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL 

COMPLEX, 

Defendants-Appellees 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:13-CV-169

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Joshua Adam Conlan, federal prisoner # 81084-280, appeals the 

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he alleged various violations 

 

* 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

March 22, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50786 Document: 00513921577 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2017
No. 15-50786

2 

of his constitutional rights incidental to an arrest. The arrest led to a 

conviction for interstate stalking. See United States v. Conlan, 786 F.3d 380, 

383 (5th Cir. 2015). The district court dismissed the action partly with 

prejudice, partly without prejudice, partly on the merits, and partly as barred 

by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). We may affirm the judgment on 

any ground apparent from the record. Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 402 

(5th Cir. 2006). 

On appeal, Conlan argues the merits of his claims of false arrest, selfincrimination, and the seizure of evidence from his motel room. He also asserts

that the district court should not have dismissed any claim “with prejudice,” 

and that he should have been allowed to further amend his complaint more 

than the two times the district court allowed. 

Because a judgment in Conlan’s favor “would necessarily imply the 

invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed 

unless [Conlan] can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already 

been invalidated.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Conlan does not address whether 

his claims are barred by Heck, and he does not assert that his conviction has 

been vacated or overturned in any way. Thus, any contention that his claims 

are not barred by Heck is abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-

25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

In any event, and regardless of the district court’s limited application of 

Heck, we conclude that all of Conlan’s claims on appeal are barred by Heck. 

See Hudson v. Hughes, 98 F.3d 868, 872 (5th Cir. 1996) (applying Heck to bar 

an illegal-search claim); Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 103 (5th Cir. 1996) 

(regarding self-incrimination); Wells v. Bonner, 45 F.3d 90, 94 (5th Cir. 1995) 

(regarding false arrest and malicious prosecution). Conlan’s conclusional 

assertion that he should have been allowed to further amend his complaint 

 Case: 15-50786 Document: 00513921577 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2017
No. 15-50786

3 

lacks merit because, at best, he would only have augmented claims that are 

barred by Heck. 

 The appeal is DISMISSED. The district court’s dismissal and our 

dismissal count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Conlan already has 

accumulated two strikes. See Conlan v. United States, 577 F. App’x 363, 364 

(5th Cir. 2014). Conlan may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action 

or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is 

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

 APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION BAR IMPOSED. 

 Case: 15-50786 Document: 00513921577 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2017