Court Opinion

ID: 9896261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:00:53.977695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:31.683269
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7309      Doc: 7         Filed: 11/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-7309

        ZAVIAN MUNIZE JORDAN,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        CHRIS NEWMAN, Officer/Detective at Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department;
        MILLER CLINT BRIDGES, Officer at Gastonia Police Department,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:19-cv-00212-MR)

        Submitted: May 15, 2023                                      Decided: November 8, 2023

        Before RICHARDSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and affirmed as modified in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Zavian Munize Jordan, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7309       Doc: 7        Filed: 11/08/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Zavian Munize Jordan appeals the district court’s order dismissing his combined

        42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Detective Chris Newman and Bivens ∗ complaint

        against Officer Miller Clint Bridges (collectively, “Defendants”). Jordan sued Defendants

        in their individual and official capacities and claimed that their actions injured him because

        he was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment for six federal convictions, which caused him

        emotional, mental, and physical stress as well as loss of income and time with his family.

        He requested $16 million in damages.

               The district court identified four claims that survived its initial review under

        28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2): Newman lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Jordan’s vehicle and

        to prolong that stop (“Claim 1”); Defendants conducted searches of two properties pursuant

        to warrants that were obtained with false information and involuntary statements during

        Jordan’s post-arrest interview (“Claim 2”); the Clerk of Court did not stamp and date

        certain warrants (“Claim 3”); and Newman exceeded the scope of one of the warrants by

        breaking into a locked garage and locked cabinets (“Claim 4”). Upon Defendants’ motion,

        the district court dismissed Claim 3 as without merit and dismissed the remaining claims

        as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

        We affirm in part and affirm as modified in part.

               ∗
                   Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
        (1971).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7309      Doc: 7         Filed: 11/08/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

               “We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss.”

        Corder v. Antero Res. Corp., 57 F.4th 384, 401 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). Initially, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Claim 3 on the

        merits. Assuming that the Clerk of Court did not in fact sign or date the warrants, those

        omissions do not amount to a Fourth Amendment violation and, therefore, are insufficient

        to state a claim under § 1983 or Bivens. Next, our review of the record confirms that Jordan

        was collaterally estopped from raising Claim 1, as we addressed whether Newman had

        reasonable suspicion during the entirety of the traffic stop in our opinion affirming Jordan’s

        convictions and sentence.       See United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 165-67

        (4th Cir. 2020); McHan v. Comm’r, 558 F.3d 326, 331 (4th Cir. 2009) (listing elements of

        collateral-estoppel doctrine). We did not, however, squarely address the issues raised in

        Claims 2 and 4. Nevertheless, we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed those

        claims as barred under Heck because a judgment in Jordan’s favor “would necessarily

        imply the invalidity of his conviction[s].” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.

               Although the district court properly dismissed Jordan’s complaint, we conclude that

        the court should have dismissed some of Jordan’s claims without prejudice. First, Jordan’s

        claims against Bridges in his official capacity should have been dismissed without

        prejudice because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate those claims.

        See Doe v. Chao, 306 F.3d 170, 184 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[A] Bivens action does not lie

        against . . . officials in their official capacity.” (emphasis omitted)); Cunningham v. Gen.

        Dynamics Info. Tech., Inc., 888 F.3d 640, 649 (4th Cir. 2018) (“[S]overeign immunity

        deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to hear claims, and a court finding that a party is

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7309         Doc: 7         Filed: 11/08/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        entitled to sovereign immunity must dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter

        jurisdiction.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Goldman v. Brink, 41 F.4th 366, 369

        (4th   Cir.   2022)      (“[A]   dismissal    for . . . any . . . defect   in   subject   matter

        jurisdiction . . . must be one without prejudice, because a court that lacks jurisdiction has

        no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits.” (internal quotation marks

        omitted)). Likewise, the district court should have dismissed Claims 2 and 4 against both

        Defendants without prejudice because Jordan may refile those claims if an appropriate

        court invalidates his convictions.

               Accordingly, we modify the portions of the district court’s order dismissing the

        official-capacity claims against Bridges and Claims 2 and 4 against both Defendants to be

        without prejudice and affirm as modified. We affirm the with-prejudice dismissal of the

        remainder of the judgment. Jordan v. Newman, No. 3:19-cv-00212-MR (W.D.N.C.

        Aug. 2, 2021). 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 IN PART,
                                                                 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART

                                                       4