[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13863

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

FREDERICK WROTEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

J. LANGFORD FLOYD, 

Judge, 

JUDY NEWCOMBE, 

District Attorney, 

J. CLARK STANKOSKI, 

Judge, 

ROBERT WILTERS, 

District Attorney, 

USCA11 Case: 21-13863 Date Filed: 04/27/2022 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13863

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00121-TFM-N

____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Wroten, proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint for failure to state a 

claim because it was barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 

(1994), and because the defendants were immune from claims for 

monetary relief. He contends the district court erred in finding no 

federal claims remained in his action and contends a ruling on his 

allegations would not undermine his other state convictions or affect his release. After review,1 we affirm.

1 We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of an in forma pauperis (IFP)

complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. 

Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1348–49 (11th Cir. 2001). Section 1915(e) provides, inter alia, that any IFP action or appeal shall be dismissed at any time if 

it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

USCA11 Case: 21-13863 Date Filed: 04/27/2022 Page: 2 of 4
21-13863 Opinion of the Court 3

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for private citizens 

against government actors for violating their constitutional rights 

and other federal laws. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To recover damages for 

an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or for other harm caused 

by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must show the conviction 

or sentence “has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to 

make such determination, or called into question by a federal 

court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–

87. If this type of § 1983 action is brought before the challenged 

conviction or sentence is invalidated, it must be dismissed. Id. at 

487. Thus, the district court considers whether a favorable judgment for the plaintiff would “necessarily imply the invalidity of his 

conviction or sentence.” Id. If the outcome would imply invalidity, then the plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed unless the 

plaintiff can establish the conviction or sentence was already invalidated. Id.

We have clarified that for Heck to apply, a successful § 1983 

suit and the underlying conviction must be logically contradictory 

such that the § 1983 suit would negate the conviction. See Dyer v. 

Lee, 488 F.3d 876, 879–80, 884 (11th Cir. 2007). We ask whether 

“it is possible that the facts could allow a successful § 1983 suit and 

the underlying conviction both to stand without contradicting each 

other.” Harrigan v. Metro Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 

1185, 1193 (11th Cir. 2020) (emphasis in original) (quotation marks 

USCA11 Case: 21-13863 Date Filed: 04/27/2022 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13863

omitted). The Heck doctrine applies when the “invalidation of a 

conviction or speedier release would . . . automatically flow from 

success on the § 1983 claim.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). In 

Harrigan, we held Heck did not bar Harrigan’s § 1983 suit because, 

if his § 1983 excessive-force claim was successful, it would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his state-court convictions as there

was a version of facts that would allow his punishment to stand 

alongside a successful § 1983 suit. Id. at 1196–97.

The district court did not err in dismissing Wroten’s second 

amended complaint because it was barred by Heck. If Wroten’s 

§ 1983 action was successful, it would have invalidated his convictions and sentences because he was directly challenging their validity by asserting they were obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution. He also conceded his convictions and sentences had not 

been previously invalidated. Unlike in Harrigan, there was no version of facts that would allow Wroten’s convictions and sentences 

to stand if his § 1983 suit succeeded because his convictions and 

sentences could not stand if the issuing court lacked jurisdiction. 

See id. Because Wroten was thus effectively collaterally attacking 

his convictions and sentences and they had not been invalidated, 

Heck applied, given that the success of his action would necessarily 

have implied the invalidity of his convictions and sentences. See 

Heck, 512 U.S. 486-87; Dyer, 488 F.3d at 879-80, 884. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13863 Date Filed: 04/27/2022 Page: 4 of 4