Lynne Thompson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probatio ( 2019 )

CLD-242 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-1132
___________
LYNNE THOMPSON,
Appellant
v.
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, c/o Deputy District
Director; PATRICIA VALAURI, District Director; PAROLE AGENT TAWNYA
PEEK; NATE SIMON, Parole Agent-Supervisor; LAURA STEDILA, Allegheny
County- Adult Probation; CHUCK ACKERMAN, Allegheny County Probation/Parole
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 18-cv-00998)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 25, 2019
Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 23, 2019)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Lynne Thompson appeals the District Court’s order dismissing her complaint. For
the reasons below, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
Thompson has multiple convictions for theft. Several of these convictions have
been the grounds for revocations of parole and probation. In her complaint, Thompson
asserted that she was wrongfully arrested on March 8, 2017 and detained pursuant to a
detainer by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. She believed that her
criminal sentences should have “maxed out” and she should have been released on
August 25, 2017. She also complained of a detainer placed on her on May 17, 2018.
Thompson requested damages for the alleged wrongful incarceration.
A Magistrate Judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to
state a claim because Thompson’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994). The District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed
the complaint. Thompson filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the dismissal of
the complaint for failure to state a claim is plenary. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2
F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner’s
claim for damages is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if it calls into question the
lawfulness of her conviction or confinement, unless she can demonstrate that the
conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. 512 U.S.at 486–87. We have
extended the rule in Heck to parole revocations. See Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d
173, 177 (3d Cir. 2006).
Here, Thompson complains of detention beginning on March 8, 2017. According
to paperwork Thompson submitted to the District Court, she received a notice of a
revocation hearing based on two new criminal convictions. The notice indicated that
Thompson was arrested on March 8, 2017 and July 14, 2017, on charges of theft by
deception and was later convicted of these charges on April 30, 2018, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County.1 Thompson has not alleged that the convictions or
revocations underlying the detention she challenges have been invalidated. As a result,
her claims are barred by Heck, and the District Court did not err in dismissing her
complaint for failure to state a claim.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4. For the reasons set forth above, we will summarily affirm
the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
1
According to the electronic docket available online, Thompson pleaded guilty. She was
sentenced to five years of probation.
3