Court Opinion

ID: 9899165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 01:00:41.816828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:14.708522
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30143         Document: 00516969258             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 23-30143                                    FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                          November 15, 2023
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   Albert E. Banks, Jr.,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Joshua Craddock; Deputy Hicks; Sheriff’s Office
   Cameron Parish,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:22-CV-5707
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Albert E. Banks, Jr., former pretrial detainee # 233288 at the Jefferson
   County Correctional Facility, filed a pro se and in forma pauperis 42 U.S.C.
   § 1983 suit. His claims stemmed from a traffic stop that took place in March
   2021 in Cameron, Louisiana. He asserted that the arresting and investigating
   officers committed various constitutional violations and that he therefore was
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30143      Document: 00516969258           Page: 2     Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                     No. 23-30143

   entitled to, inter alia, money damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.
   The district court determined that the suit was barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
   512 U.S. 477 (1994), decided that Banks had failed to state a claim upon which
   relief may be granted, and ordered the dismissal of the suit without prejudice.
   We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo and apply the same
   standard as a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Black
   v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).
          Banks contends that the district court erred in concluding that his suit
   was barred by Heck. He asserts that the district court failed to consider and
   credit his contention—which he presented in his objections to the magistrate
   judge’s report—that the criminal charges arising from the traffic stop were
   dismissed prior to trial because of insufficient evidence.
          A district court may construe an issue raised initially in objections to
   the magistrate judge’s report as a motion to amend a complaint. United States
   v. Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996). The record does not establish that
   the district court allowed an amendment and instead reflects that the district
   court implicitly denied any request to amend the suit to include the allegation
   as to the dismissed charges. See Moler v. Wells, 18 F.4th 162, 167-68 (5th Cir.
   2021). We review the denial of a motion to amend for an abuse of discretion.
   Id. at 168.
          In his objections, Banks contended specifically that the charges arising
   from the traffic stop were dismissed due to lack of evidence. If we accept that
   allegation as true, as we must, see In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d
   191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007), no criminal liability was imposed as a result of the
   traffic stop. There thus would be no conviction or sentence that could be
   invalidated by the instant suit. The Heck bar would not apply, see Heck, 512
   U.S. at 487, and dismissal of the suit based on Heck would be in error.

                                          2
Case: 23-30143      Document: 00516969258           Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                     No. 23-30143

          Thus, the claim raised in the objections would have been sufficient to
   prevent dismissal of the action based on Heck. Because the added allegation
   would defeat the basis for the dismissal of the action, the district court abused
   its discretion in not giving Banks the chance to amend his suit and by failing
   to consider the allegation in ruling on his objections. See Moler, 18 F.4th at
   167-68; Riascos, 76 F.3d at 94-95.
          Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and
   the case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.

                                          3