Christopher Alipui v. Brian Byerson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7019
CHRISTOPHER ALIPUI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN BYERSON; JOHN DOE, White Male Officer; JOHN DOE, White
Male Officer; JOHN DOE, Duty Sergeant; JOHN DOE, Lady
Detective,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00103-GBL-JFA)
Submitted: December 22, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2016
Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Christopher Alipui, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Pace Baucom,
Assistant County Attorney, Jamie Marie Greenzweig, FAIRFAX
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Alipui appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. Alipui
asserts that the district court erred in granting Defendants’
motion to dismiss. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and
remand.
We review de novo a district court’s order dismissing a
complaint for failure to state a claim, assuming that all well-
pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint are
true. SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 801 F.3d 412, 422
(4th Cir. 2015). In order to state a claim, a complaint must
assert factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level” and have “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). We need
not accept the legal conclusions plaintiff draws from these
facts, or “accept unwarranted inferences, unreasonable
conclusions, or arguments.” SD3, LLC, 801 F.3d at 422 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Alipui’s claims arise from his arrest on state credit card
theft charges. Alipui alleged that Officer Brian Byerson
searched his cell phone and person; seized his personal
belongings; and arrested him without a warrant or probable
2
cause. The state court later entered a nolle prosequi on the
credit card charges. Alipui then pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to federal charges of bank fraud and
aggravated identity theft. The district court held that
Alipui’s claims in the present case were barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success on his claims
would necessarily imply the invalidity of his federal
convictions.
Under Heck, if a prisoner’s successful § 1983 claim “‘would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence,’” the claim is not cognizable unless the prisoner
“‘demonstrate[s] that the conviction or sentence already has
been invalidated.’” Young v. Nichols, 413 F.3d 416, 418-19 (4th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487). However, “civil
claims based on unreasonable searches do not necessarily imply
that the resulting criminal convictions were unlawful.”
Covey v. Assessor of Ohio Cnty., 777 F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir.
2015). “[A] civil-rights claim does not necessarily imply the
invalidity of a conviction or sentence if (1) the conviction
derives from a guilty plea rather than a verdict obtained with
unlawfully obtained evidence and (2) the plaintiff does not
plead facts inconsistent with guilt.” Id.3
We conclude that on the record currently before us success
on Alipui’s claims would not necessarily imply the invalidity of
his federal convictions. Because it is not clear that the
evidence seized during Alipui’s arrest on state credit card
theft charges was used to secure his federal convictions for
bank fraud and aggravated identity theft, success on his search
and seizure claims would not necessarily imply that his federal
convictions were invalid. Additionally, Alipui did not plead
facts in his § 1983 complaint that are inconsistent with his
guilty pleas to the federal charges. See Covey, 777 F.3d at
197. Finally, success on Alipui’s claim that Byerson lacked
probable cause to arrest him for credit card theft would not
necessarily imply that his later federal convictions for bank
fraud and aggravated identity theft, for which he was separately
arrested, were invalid. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, vacate the district court’s dismissal of
Alipui’s false arrest and illegal search and seizure claims, and
remand for further proceedings.
Turning to Alipui’s remaining claims, we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error in the district court’s
dismissal of those claims. We therefore affirm the district
court’s order dismissing his remaining claims and denying his
motion to appoint counsel for the reasons stated by the district
4
court. Alipui v. Byerson, No. 1:14-cv-00103-GBL-JFA (E.D. Va.
June 2, 2015). We deny Alipui’s motion to appoint counsel and
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
5