Case Name: Jeffrey COHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rod ROSENSTEIN, U.S. Attorney; Harry Gruber, Asst. U.S. Attorney; Joyce McDonald, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-25
Citations: 607 F. App'x 334
Docket Number: No. 15-6193
Parties: Jeffrey COHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rod ROSENSTEIN, U.S. Attorney; Harry Gruber, Asst. U.S. Attorney; Joyce McDonald, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 607
Pages: 334–335

Head Matter:
Jeffrey COHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rod ROSENSTEIN, U.S. Attorney; Harry Gruber, Asst. U.S. Attorney; Joyce McDonald, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-6193.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 11, 2015.
Decided: June 25, 2015.
Jeffrey Cohen, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Brian Cohen appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 1915A (2012), his suit against federal prosecutors brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).
The district court determined that Cohen's complaint raised issues concerning the validity of the Government's ongoing criminal case against Cohen and, thus, should be dismissed under the principles of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and its progeny. Because no final judgment of conviction has yet been entered, we conclude that the district court's dismissal under Heck is premature. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order and remand for further proceedings in light of Wallace. We 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
We have jurisdiction because Cohen cannot cure the defect identified in his complaint by mere amendment. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993).