Court Opinion

ID: 9961698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 16:00:51.314263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:41.770496
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 24-1007
                         ___________________________

                                  Steven L. Volner,

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,

                                            v.

          David Mabe, Deputy; Crawford County Sheriff’s Department,

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees.
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                  ____________

                              Submitted: April 2, 2024
                               Filed: April 19, 2024
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, BENTON and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                            ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Missouri inmate Steven Volner appeals following the preservice dismissal of
his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Volner claimed that his rights were violated by
an illegal search. The district court concluded that Volner’s unlawful search-and-
seizure claim under the Fourth Amendment was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994), based on a state conviction for possession of a controlled substance
that arose from evidence discovered in the search. On appeal, Volner argues that his
claim was not barred by Heck.

       On de novo review, we conclude that Volner’s unlawful search-and-seizure
claim was not barred by Heck because success on the claim would not necessarily
imply the invalidity of his state conviction. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7; Whitmore
v. Harrington, 204 F.3d 784, 784-85 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam); Moore v. Sims, 200
F.3d 1170, 1171-72 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Accordingly, we reverse the
dismissal and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion. We express no view on whether any defendant or claim may be subject to
dismissal for any other reason. We overrule Volner’s objection to no-argument
classification and deny Volner’s request for appointment of amicus curiae to defend
the judgment.
                        ______________________________

                                         -2-