Court Opinion

ID: 9556796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 18:00:54.259447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:30.338808
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20083         Document: 00516862919             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/18/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                               Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                             FILED
                                                                                       August 18, 2023
                                       No. 23-20083
                                     Summary Calendar                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                            Clerk

   Avivia Luciana Brown,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   S. H. Quian, Officer; P. T. Rubio, Officer,

                                              Defendants—Appellants.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:20-CV-862
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The defendants in this interlocutory appeal challenge the district
   court’s denial, in part, of their motion to dismiss Avivia Luciana Brown’s
   42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. In support of their appeal, the defendants
   contend that, contrary to the district court’s ruling, Brown did not allege
   facts showing that they violated her constitutional rights, they were entitled

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20083      Document: 00516862919          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/18/2023

                                    No. 23-20083

   to qualified immunity, and Brown’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
   512 U.S. 477 (1994). We have jurisdiction to review these arguments. See
   Poole v. City of Shreveport, 13 F.4th 420, 426 (5th Cir. 2021); Armstrong v.
   Ashley, 918 F.3d 419, 422 (5th Cir. 2019).
          Accepting Brown’s allegations as true and in a light most favorable to
   her, see Ramirez v. Guadarrama, 3 F.4th 129, 133 (5th Cir. 2021), the district
   court did not err in determining that Brown had stated a claim for relief under
   the Fourth Amendment and that the defendants’ alleged actions were
   objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law, see Ramirez v.
   Martinez, 716 F.3d 369, 379 (5th Cir. 2013); Newman v. Guedry, 703 F.3d 757,
   763-64 (5th Cir. 2012); Spann v. Rainey, 987 F.2d 1110, 1112, 1115 (5th Cir.
   1993). Last, the district court correctly determined that Heck has no bearing,
   given the finding that the prosecutor dismissed the criminal charge against
   Brown before trial, and the prosecution against Brown in state court ended
   without a conviction. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.
          Accordingly, the district court’s ruling is AFFIRMED.

                                         2