Court Opinion

ID: 9395442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 21:00:59.741797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:08.414538
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7477      Doc: 16         Filed: 05/16/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-7477

        BRIAN LEON HAMLET,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        DOUG A. IRVIN; VANNESSA DUNCAN; TRAVIS CASSELL,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:20-cv-00013-MFU-JCH)

        Submitted: May 8, 2023                                            Decided: May 16, 2023

        Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brian Leon Hamlet, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7477      Doc: 16         Filed: 05/16/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

              Brian Leon Hamlet appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1); Heck v. Humphrey, 512

        U.S. 477 (1994), for failure to state a claim, and denying Defendants’ motion for summary

        judgment as moot. In his complaint, Hamlet challenged the constitutionality of a probation

        condition requiring him to submit to electronic monitoring by wearing a Global Positioning

        System (GPS) device, which was allegedly imposed by the Defendants in a previous period

        of supervised probation. As noted by the district court, Hamlet asserted that Heck did not

        bar his claims; and Defendants did not dispute the assertion in their motion for summary

        judgment. But, the district court sua sponte raised the issue and dismissed the complaint.

              We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court erred in dismissing

        Hamlet’s complaint. The rule in Heck v. Humphrey does not implicate the district court’s

        subject matter jurisdiction; and Defendants forfeited the issue. See Carolina Youth Action

        Project v. Wilson, 60 F.4th 770, 788 n.14 (4th Cir. 2023); see also Thornton v. Brown, 757

        F.3d 834, 843-46 (9th Cir. 2013) (where plaintiff challenged parole conditions, including

        GPS monitoring, which were not imposed as part of a court judgment but rather through a

        discretionary decision of a state department of corrections, Heck did not bar him from

        proceeding under § 1983). We further conclude, under the circumstances of this case, the

        district court should consider Defendants’ motion and Hamlet’s response before deciding

        whether Hamlet states a claim on which relief may be granted under § 1983.

              Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings

        consistent with this opinion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7477      Doc: 16        Filed: 05/16/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                   VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                    3