Court Opinion

ID: 9554819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 21:00:49.096983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:40.978554
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6368      Doc: 10         Filed: 08/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6368

        OWEN BOBBY LAMB, JR.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Dep’t of Corrections; WARDEN WALRATH,
        Warden; MR. VANCHAMP, Unit Manager,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-01162-LO-IDD)

        Submitted: January 31, 2023                                       Decided: August 8, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Owen Bobby Lamb, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6368      Doc: 10         Filed: 08/08/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Owen Bobby Lamb, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice

        his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. * In his amended complaint, Lamb sought both damages and

        immediate release from prison. The district court dismissed Lamb’s claims as barred by

        Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (holding that plaintiff may not recover

        damages under § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations that would necessarily imply

        invalidity of conviction or sentence unless plaintiff demonstrated that conviction or

        sentence was set aside or invalidated).

               We agree that the principles of Heck barred Lamb’s claims in his § 1983 amended

        complaint. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 928 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that

        Heck’s favorable termination rule “ensur[es] that a court cannot address a § 1983 claim if

        doing so would require it to first resolve a claim that falls within the core of habeas

        corpus”). Although Lamb argued that he was also entitled to immediate release, any

        challenge to the fact or duration of his confinement must be brought in a habeas petition

        under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Moskos v. Hardee, 24 F.4th 289, 295 (4th Cir. 2022)

        (explaining that “habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for state prisoners attacking the

        validity of the fact or length of their confinement” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing Lamb’s amended

        complaint, but we modify the judgment to reflect a dismissal without prejudice so that

               *
                 Although Lamb’s action was filed on a form for petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
        the district court properly considered it to be an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 based on
        the request for damages.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6368         Doc: 10    Filed: 08/08/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

        Lamb may refile his claims should he ever satisfy Heck’s favorable termination

        requirement. 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.

                                                                   AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

                                                  3