CLD-242 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 19-1132

___________

LYNNE THOMPSON,

 Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, c/o Deputy District 

Director; PATRICIA VALAURI, District Director; PAROLE AGENT TAWNYA 

PEEK; NATE SIMON, Parole Agent-Supervisor; LAURA STEDILA, Allegheny 

County- Adult Probation; CHUCK ACKERMAN, Allegheny County Probation/Parole

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 18-cv-00998)

District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or 

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

July 25, 2019

Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 23, 2019)
2

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Lynne Thompson appeals the District Court’s order dismissing her complaint. For 

the reasons below, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.

Thompson has multiple convictions for theft. Several of these convictions have 

been the grounds for revocations of parole and probation. In her complaint, Thompson 

asserted that she was wrongfully arrested on March 8, 2017 and detained pursuant to a 

detainer by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. She believed that her 

criminal sentences should have “maxed out” and she should have been released on 

August 25, 2017. She also complained of a detainer placed on her on May 17, 2018. 

Thompson requested damages for the alleged wrongful incarceration.

A Magistrate Judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim because Thompson’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 

477 (1994). The District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed 

the complaint. Thompson filed a timely notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the dismissal of 

the complaint for failure to state a claim is plenary. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
3

F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner’s 

claim for damages is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if it calls into question the 

lawfulness of her conviction or confinement, unless she can demonstrate that the 

conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. 512 U.S.at 486–87. We have

extended the rule in Heck to parole revocations. See Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d 

173, 177 (3d Cir. 2006). 

Here, Thompson complains of detention beginning on March 8, 2017. According 

to paperwork Thompson submitted to the District Court, she received a notice of a 

revocation hearing based on two new criminal convictions. The notice indicated that 

Thompson was arrested on March 8, 2017 and July 14, 2017, on charges of theft by 

deception and was later convicted of these charges on April 30, 2018, in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Allegheny County.1 Thompson has not alleged that the convictions or 

revocations underlying the detention she challenges have been invalidated. As a result, 

her claims are barred by Heck, and the District Court did not err in dismissing her 

complaint for failure to state a claim. 

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the 

appeal. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4. For the reasons set forth above, we will summarily affirm 

the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

 

1 According to the electronic docket available online, Thompson pleaded guilty. She was 

sentenced to five years of probation.