FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L17, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 37 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 44 82 -AJ GREGORY O’ NEIL HEND ERSON, Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ALLEN DAVIS, Co rrec ti on al Pro ba ti onSupe rv is or , ELIZABETH MANGE R, Co rrec ti on al Pro ba ti onSupe rv is or , KIMBER LY MAY, Co rrec ti on al Pro ba ti onSupe rv is or , LATRENDA SMALL, Paro le Exam in er, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 17 , 20 12 )Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Greg ory O’ Neil Hend ers on ap pe al s t he di stric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 c iv il rig ht s ac ti on forfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) . He con te nd s t he di st ric t co urt i m pr op erl y di sm is se d h is am en de d co m pl ai ntpu rs ua ntto Heck v . Hump hr ey , 51 2 U.S. 4 77 (19 94 ), be cau se th e di st ric t co urt m is co ns tru editas a n a tt ackup on th e rev oc at io n o f hi s Fl or id a st at e co nd it io na l re le as e. Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt. 1 A st at e p ris on er m ay

no t b rin g ada m ag es cla im pu rs ua ntto 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, wh erei n s uc ces s wo ul d l og ic al ly con tra di ctth e und erl y in g re as on for hi s in carc erat io n. Heck , 51 2 U.S. at48 7. “ Thu s, wh ena st at e p ris on er s eek s d am ag es in a § 1 98 3 s ui t, the di st ric t co urt m us t co ns id er wh ethe r a jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e pl ai nt iff wou ldne ces sa ril y

im pl y th e in va li di ty of hi s co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e; if i t wou ld , th e co m

pl ai ntm us t b e d is m is se d . . . .” Id. Hen de rs on ’s su cces s i n h is civ il rig ht s ac ti on all eg in g the de fen da nt s co ns pi redto co m

m itpe rjury andvi ol at e h is rig ht s u nd er the Fif th , Eig hth a nd Fo urte en th Am en dm en t wo ul d l og ic al ly con tra di ctth e rev oc at io n o f hi s

We review de novo a district cour t’s dismiss al for f

ailure to state a

claim pursuant to 28 1 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (B ). Mitchell v. Farc ass , 112 F.3d 1483, 1489- 90 (11th Cir. 1997). 2co nd it io na l re le as e. Furth erm or e, hi s re qu es ts form on et ary da m ag es were d ire ct ly

at tri bu tabl e to th e rev oc at io n o f hi s co nd it io na l re le as e an d re -in carc erat io n, an d th eref or e b arre d b y Heck . Accor di ng ly, Heck ba rs th es e cl ai m s, an d t he di st ric t co urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng th em pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) . Howev er, Hen de rs on ’s su cces s o n h is Fo urthAm en dm en t cl ai m , th atth e se arch an d s ei zure athi s re si de nc e b y pa ro le off

ic ers was u nc on st itut io na l, wo ul d no t n eces sa ril y

co nt rad ic t the rev oc at io n o f hi s co nd it io na l re le as e. Whi le th e in fo rm at io n g athe reddu rin g t he sea rch serve d a s t he ba si s fo r th e rev oc at io n o f hi s co nd it io na l re le as e, th atev id en ce was adm is si bl e atth e rev oc at io n h eari ng reg ard le ss of t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y of t he sea rch du e to th e in ap pl ic ab il it y of t he ex cl us io na ry

rul e to co nd it io na l re le as e rev oc at io n h eari ng s. Se e Pa. Bd. of Pro b. &Par ol e v. S

co tt , 52 4 U.S. 3 57 , 36 4 (1 99 8) (ex pl ai ni ng whi le co urts ge ne ral ly ex cl ud e m at eri al ga th eredinvi ol at io n o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t, the ex cl us io na ry ru le do es no t ap pl y

inst at e p aro le rev oc at io n h eari ng s t o e xc lu de ev id en ce ob ta in edinvi ol at io n o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t). Re gard le ss , th e d is tri ctco urt d id no t err in di sm is si ng hi s Fo urth Am en dm en t cl ai m be cau se itwas u nt im el y subm it te d m or e th anfou r y ears aft er the da te up onwhi chitaccr ue d. Se e Fla . 2 We may aff irm a district court’ s decision on any ground supported by

the re cord. 2 Bircoll v. Miami-DadeCnty. , 480 F.3d 1072, 1088 n.21 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 3St at . § 9 5.1 1( 3) (p ); Bur to n v . Cit y o f Bel le Gla de , 17 8 F .3d11 75 , 11 88 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (s ta ti ng § 1 98 3 a ct io ns co m m en cedinFlo rid a are go ve rn edby the fou r-y ear res idua l s ta te st atut e o f li mit at io ns ). Thu s, we af

firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f Hen de rs on ’s civ il act io n. AFFIRMED.

4