Case Name: Melvin LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott DONAHUE, Police Officer, Individually and in His Official Capacity, Barry Angel, Police Officer, in his Individual and Office Capacity, City of Binghamton, Defendants-Appellees, Joanne Rose Parry, Martin Smith, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-19
Citations: 241 F. App'x 776
Docket Number: No. 06-2800-cv
Parties: Melvin LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott DONAHUE, Police Officer, Individually and in His Official Capacity, Barry Angel, Police Officer, in his Individual and Office Capacity, City of Binghamton, Defendants-Appellees, Joanne Rose Parry, Martin Smith, Defendants.
Judges: PRESENT: Hon. WALKER, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI and Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 241
Pages: 776–777

Head Matter:
Melvin LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott DONAHUE, Police Officer, Individually and in His Official Capacity, Barry Angel, Police Officer, in his Individual and Office Capacity, City of Binghamton, Defendants-Appellees, Joanne Rose Parry, Martin Smith, Defendants.
No. 06-2800-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 19, 2007.
Melvin Lewis, Auburn, NY, pro se.
David E. Butler, (Brian M. Seachrist on the brief), Butler & Butler, Vestal, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
PRESENT: Hon. WALKER, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI and Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Melvin Lewis appeals from a June 6, 2006 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.) denying his motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint sua sponte. We review de novo a district court's decision to dismiss a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir.2001).
The district court properly held that Lewis's malicious prosecution claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) ("[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, 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."). To the extent that Heck arguably does not invalidate his false arrest and false imprisonment claims, see Perez v. Sifel, 57 F.3d 503, 505 (7th Cir.1995), these claims are precluded by the rules of collateral estoppel and res judicata. See Johnson v. Watkins, 101 F.3d 792, 794-95 (2d Cir.1996).
The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant's motion for compensation and punitive damages is DISMISSED AS MOOT.