Court Opinion

ID: 998851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:17:02.951069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:10.046917
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

STEPHAN D. BROOKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                      No. 98-7739
JOHN DOE, Law Enforcement
Officer; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge.
(CA-98-460)

Submitted: May 11, 1999

Decided: June 3, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Stephen D. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Stephan Brooks appeals from a district court order dismissing his
action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994), seeking damages for
his allegedly unlawful arrest. Although the district court dismissed the
action on the ground that it sounded in habeas and required exhaus-
tion of state remedies, Brooks' complaint does not specifically chal-
lenge the validity of his conviction or continued detention, but rather
seeks only monetary damages for his allegedly improper arrest. More-
over, Brooks' wrongful arrest claim does not necessarily bear on the
validity of his conviction because he could successfully challenge the
arrest without affecting his conviction. See Washington v.
Summerville, 127 F.3d 552, 556 (7th Cir. 1997); Brooks v. City of
Winston-Salem, Inc., 85 F.3d 178, 182-83 (4th Cir. 1996).

We therefore vacate the district court's order and remand for fur-
ther consideration. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                    2