[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-14012

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cv-60865-RNS

ANTON DAMES, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA, 

SERGIO LOPEZ, 

#2649, 

CITY OF PLANTATION, FLORIDA, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(November 2, 2015)

Before HULL, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-14012 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 1 of 9 
2

Anton Dames, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s sua sponte

dismissal without prejudice of his pro se civil rights complaint for failure to state a 

claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). After a thorough review, we affirm.

I.

In his underlying criminal case, a jury convicted Dames of three counts of 

distributing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public playground in September 2011 

and one count of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute within 1,000 feet 

of a public playground in November 2011, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and 860(a). The first three counts represented separate drug transactions involving 

Dames and a confidential informant in September 2011 at his residence near a park 

in Opa-Locka, Florida. The fourth count represented the drugs found in Dames’s 

residence in November 2011, when he was arrested just before a planned fourth 

drug transaction. Although the jury convicted Dames on all four counts, it found 

in favor of Dames as to a fifth forfeiture count involving his residence. Dames was 

later sentenced to a mandatory-minimum ten years’ imprisonment. This Court 

affirmed Dames’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. See United States v. 

Dames, 556 F. App’x 793 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, Dames v. United States, 135 S. 

Ct. 198 (2014).

Case: 13-14012 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 2 of 9 
3

In April 2013, Dames filed the instant pro se

1 civil rights complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,2 naming three defendants: (1) Sergio Lopez, a police 

detective in Hollywood, Florida; (2) the City of Hollywood, Florida; and (3) the 

City of Plantation, Florida.3

 In his complaint, Dames raised claims related to his 

underlying criminal case, including allegations about falsified court documents, 

false statements, auto theft, false imprisonment, and a “possible hate crime.” 

Dames alleged that he had mailed packages to the “judge[s] and involved people in 

case” that showed “all burden of proof.” As relief, Dames requested that his 

criminal convictions be overturned, that criminal charges be brought against the 

individuals involved in his entrapment and car theft, monetary damages, and any 

other appropriate mandamus relief.

Without requiring a response from the defendants, the magistrate judge 

issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that Dames’s 

complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The R&R determined that Dames had stated his claims “in a 

 

1

Although Dames proceeded pro se in the district court, this Court appointed Dames 

counsel for his appeal.

2

Although Dames’s form complaint cited Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of 

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971), the district court correctly 

concluded that Dames’s action against state actors was properly brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983.

3

The magistrate judge also identified Matthew Rasnake, an employee of the “Forfeiture 

and Seized Property Unit,” as a defendant, but Dames’s complaint merely listed Rasnake as a 

defendant in a previous lawsuit, not as a defendant in the instant action.

Case: 13-14012 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 3 of 9 
4

completely conclusory fashion” and appeared to be attacking his federal criminal 

convictions “in which it appears his car was forfeited.” Accordingly, the R&R 

recommended the complaint be dismissed because Dames failed to state a claim 

and because his claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. 

Ct. 2364 (1994), and were more appropriately raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion 

to vacate. The R&R noted that any “[c]laims related to the alleged unlawful 

forfeiture of his car or any other property must be raised in a forfeiture action.” 

Overruling Dames’s objections, the district court adopted the R&R and 

dismissed his complaint without prejudice on August 22, 2013. On September 3, 

2013, Dames’s notice of appeal was filed in the district court. 

Six days after Dames filed his notice of appeal, he filed a post-judgment 

pleading in the district court titled “Motion to be Loaned or Furnished the Record 

on Appeal.”4 Filed with this motion was, among other things, a copy of a second 

civil rights complaint dated August 31, 2013, in which Dames named the same 

three above defendants plus a fourth, new defendant, Detective Tom Bradford. In 

the portion of the form complaint asking about previous lawsuits, Dames listed the 

instant action, Civil Action No. 0:13-cv-60865, which he said involved the same 

facts. With respect to the disposition of the instant action, Dames stated that the 

 

4 On August 30, 2013, Dames signed the certificate of service attached to the notice of 

appeal, that was filed on September 3, 2013. On August 31, 2013, Dames signed the certificate 

of service attached to the motion for the record. 

Case: 13-14012 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 4 of 9 
5

case was “closed and pending appeal.” In his motion for a copy of the record, 

Dames did not mention, nor ask for relief as to, this second complaint filed with 

the motion.

The district court granted Dames’s motion for a copy of the record on 

appeal, and did not mention Dames’s second complaint filed with that motion. The 

district court also granted Dames leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, 

determining that his appeal was not frivolous. The instant appeal followed.

II.

A. Original Complaint

We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), viewing the 

allegations in the complaint as true. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th 

Cir. 2003).

In this case, we find no merit to Dames’s argument that Heck does not apply 

to his claims attacking his federal criminal convictions and seeking his release 

from federal prison. In Heck, the Supreme Court held that:

[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional 

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions 

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 

§ 1983 plaintiff must prove that 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, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Case: 13-14012 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 5 of 9 
6

512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. If such a § 1983 action is brought before 

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

487, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. Thus, “the district court must consider whether a 

judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his 

conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the 

plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been 

invalidated.” Id.

Here, Dames’s claims in his original complaint—which essentially allege 

that the defendants falsified documents and evidence in his prosecution—

necessarily implicate the validity of his underlying federal convictions for 

distributing cocaine. Absent the invalidation of his convictions, which had not 

occurred, Dames’s claims were barred. See id. Moreover, we agree with the 

district court that the allegations in Dames’s original complaint were completely 

conclusory. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Dames’s 

original complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

B. Second Complaint Filed Post-Judgement

In his appellate brief, Dames for the first time on appeal essentially asks this 

Court to treat the second complaint, filed post-judgment, as an amended complaint 

in the instant action. Dames refers to his “amended allegations” and argues that 

Case: 13-14012 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 6 of 9 
7

“his original complaint must be read in conjunction with, what is the functional 

equivalent of, his amended complaint.” 

In this second complaint, Dames alleged that: (1) in September 2011 

Detectives Lopez and Bradford conducted a search and seizure at his home without 

a warrant “to create a crime” to arrest him; (2) Lopez and Bradford physically beat 

a confidential informant over a period of days in order to coerce the informant to 

entrap Dames into selling drugs; (3) law enforcement officials provided false 

information about the “VIN #” of Dames’s car to the state court; (4) state officials 

used a “false court motion to claim [his] Mercedes Benz from [the] FBI after [his] 

arrest on November 2, 2011 after trial in 2012”; and (5) the “special verdict jury 

instructed that all [Dames’s] property be returned and Sergio Lopez #2649 

refuse[d] to do so as the Federal Jury requested.” As relief, Dames sought 

compensation for the loss of “property, time, and employment and back pay owed 

on mortgage,” and his “[r]elease [from] false imprisonment.” 

In this case, the district court never addressed Dames’s “amended” 

complaint, which Dames filed after he filed his notice of appeal. Generally, the 

filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction “over the aspects 

of the case involved in the appeal.” United States v. Diveroli, 729 F.3d 1339, 1341 

(11th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, to the extent Dames intended 

for his motion for a copy of the record on appeal, with which he filed the second 

Case: 13-14012 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 7 of 9 
8

complaint, to amend his original complaint, the district court had no jurisdiction to 

consider those amended allegations. And, because Dames’s claims in the 

“amended” complaint were not before the district court, we ordinarily would not 

review those claims on the merits. See Access Now, Inc. v. SW. Airlines Co., 385 

F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining that this Court will not consider 

issues on appeal that were not fairly presented below). 

Nonetheless, we do recognize that Dames now has counsel on appeal and 

that Dames’s brief on appeal argues, for the first time, that his claims in the second 

complaint concerning the illegal seizure of his car under the Fourth Amendment 

are not Heck-barred because his car was not forfeited as part of his federal criminal 

case, but as part of a state forfeiture case. See Hughes, 350 F.3d at 1160-61

(discussing whether certain claims are Heck-barred). Contrary to Dames’s 

assertions, the claims in the second complaint essentially complain about falsified 

documents, evidence, or acts in the federal prosecution against him and are Heckbarred. As to his claims about his car, Dames’s federal indictment and the jury’s 

“Special Verdict Form” show that the federal government sought to forfeit 

Dames’s residence and the jury returned a special verdict as to the residence 

located at 17910 NW 31st Avenue, Opa Locka, Florida.5

 His car, however, was 

not part of that forfeiture or the federal jury’s verdict in his favor. In any event, 

 

5

Dames himself filed both the indictment and his Special Verdict Form. 

Case: 13-14012 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 8 of 9 
9

Dames’s second complaint is too conclusory to state a cognizable cause of action 

with respect to any forfeiture outside his federal criminal case. Moreover, his 

second complaint makes no allegations at all against the new defendant, Detective 

Bradford, or the two defendant municipalities. And, his allegations about 

Detective Lopez are conclusory and no better than his original complaint.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-14012 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 9 of 9