Banks v. Craddock ( 2023 )

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