Court Opinion

ID: 8437170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-04 15:58:38.086515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:48:44.372624
License: Public Domain

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplement filed by the appellants. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders issued January 25, 2010, and May 3, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the appellants’ complaint for damages and for declaratory and injunctive relief as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because success on their claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of their convictions and sentences. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (applying Heck to bar a state prisoner’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to money damages).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.