Stanley v. Stuart ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 17, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60818
Summary Calendar
STEVEN STANLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOE STUART; LORANCE LUMPKIN; CLAIBORNE
MCDONALD; THOMAS SCHWARTZ; SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT, Pearl River County,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:03-CV-644-GRo
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Steven Stanley, Mississippi prisoner # R5821, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. He
concedes that the majority of his claims are barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), but he maintains that the district
court wrongly dismissed his action with prejudice. The “preferred
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
order of dismissal” under Heck, which was used by the district
court, dismisses barred claims “with prejudice to their being
asserted again until the Heck conditions are met.” Johnson v.
McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996).
Stanley also asserts that the district court wrongly dismissed
pursuant to Heck his challenges to the improper seizure of his
personal property. To the extent that Stanley is raising a
substantive due process claim, the issue would arise under the
Fourth Amendment and Stanley is challenging actions taken at the
time of his arrest, which may call into question the validity of
his conviction. See Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.
1995). To the extent that Stanley is arguing that the defendants
denied him procedural due process through the unauthorized seizure
of his personal property, the claims are barred by the
Parratt/Hudson doctrine. See Sheppard v. Louisiana Bd. of Parole,
873 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir. 1989). The judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
G:\opin-sc\03-60818.opn.wpd 2