UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7019

CHRISTOPHER ALIPUI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRIAN BYERSON; JOHN DOE, White Male Officer; JOHN DOE, White 

Male Officer; JOHN DOE, Duty Sergeant; JOHN DOE, Lady 

Detective,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00103-GBL-JFA)

Submitted: December 22, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2016

Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished 

per curiam opinion.

Christopher Alipui, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Pace Baucom, 

Assistant County Attorney, Jamie Marie Greenzweig, FAIRFAX 

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Alipui appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. Alipui 

asserts that the district court erred in granting Defendants’

motion to dismiss. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and 

remand.

We review de novo a district court’s order dismissing a 

complaint for failure to state a claim, assuming that all wellpleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint are 

true. SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 801 F.3d 412, 422

(4th Cir. 2015). In order to state a claim, a complaint must 

assert factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level” and have “enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell 

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). We need 

not accept the legal conclusions plaintiff draws from these 

facts, or “accept unwarranted inferences, unreasonable 

conclusions, or arguments.” SD3, LLC, 801 F.3d at 422 (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

Alipui’s claims arise from his arrest on state credit card 

theft charges. Alipui alleged that Officer Brian Byerson 

searched his cell phone and person; seized his personal 

belongings; and arrested him without a warrant or probable 
3

cause. The state court later entered a nolle prosequi on the 

credit card charges. Alipui then pleaded guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to federal charges of bank fraud and 

aggravated identity theft. The district court held that 

Alipui’s claims in the present case were barred by Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success on his claims 

would necessarily imply the invalidity of his federal 

convictions.

Under Heck, if a prisoner’s successful § 1983 claim “‘would 

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or 

sentence,’” the claim is not cognizable unless the prisoner 

“‘demonstrate[s] that the conviction or sentence already has 

been invalidated.’” Young v. Nichols, 413 F.3d 416, 418-19 (4th 

Cir. 2005) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487). However, “civil 

claims based on unreasonable searches do not necessarily imply 

that the resulting criminal convictions were unlawful.” 

Covey v. Assessor of Ohio Cnty., 777 F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir. 

2015). “[A] civil-rights claim does not necessarily imply the 

invalidity of a conviction or sentence if (1) the conviction 

derives from a guilty plea rather than a verdict obtained with 

unlawfully obtained evidence and (2) the plaintiff does not 

plead facts inconsistent with guilt.” Id.
4

We conclude that on the record currently before us success 

on Alipui’s claims would not necessarily imply the invalidity of 

his federal convictions. Because it is not clear that the 

evidence seized during Alipui’s arrest on state credit card 

theft charges was used to secure his federal convictions for 

bank fraud and aggravated identity theft, success on his search 

and seizure claims would not necessarily imply that his federal 

convictions were invalid. Additionally, Alipui did not plead 

facts in his § 1983 complaint that are inconsistent with his 

guilty pleas to the federal charges. See Covey, 777 F.3d at 

197. Finally, success on Alipui’s claim that Byerson lacked 

probable cause to arrest him for credit card theft would not 

necessarily imply that his later federal convictions for bank 

fraud and aggravated identity theft, for which he was separately

arrested, were invalid. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis, vacate the district court’s dismissal of 

Alipui’s false arrest and illegal search and seizure claims, and 

remand for further proceedings.

Turning to Alipui’s remaining claims, we have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error in the district court’s 

dismissal of those claims. We therefore affirm the district 

court’s order dismissing his remaining claims and denying his 

motion to appoint counsel for the reasons stated by the district
5

court. Alipui v. Byerson, No. 1:14-cv-00103-GBL-JFA (E.D. Va. 

June 2, 2015). We deny Alipui’s motion to appoint counsel and 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

VACATED IN PART,

AND REMANDED