CA5: Plaintiff’s civil search claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, but his due process claim was not

Plaintiff’s civil search claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, but his due process claim was not. Shugart v. Six Unknown Fannin Cty. Sheriffs, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14190 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2017):

The district court did not err by holding that Shugart’s Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure claims are barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994); because the marijuana at issue would not otherwise have been admissible on an alternative basis, a judgment on those claims in Shugart’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his drug conviction. See id. at 486-87 & n.7; Hudson v. Hughes, 98 F.3d 868, 872 (5th Cir. 1996). Shugart’s guilty plea does not prevent this bar. See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 396-97 (5th Cir. 2006). Nor did the district court reversibly err by dismissing these claims without first allowing Shugart an opportunity to amend since the record shows that Shugart had sufficient opportunity to plead his best case. See Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998). Likewise, to the extent that Shugart contends that the district court erred by dismissing his due process claim alleging that the destruction of his greenhouse resulted from a misapplication of Texas Health and Safety Code §§ 481.153 and 481.183, his argument lacks merit since state law claims are not cognizable under § 1983. See Wyatt v. Cole, 994 F.2d 1113, 1121 (5th Cir. 1993).

However, Heck does not bar Shugart’s challenge to the constitutionality of § 481.153 on procedural due process grounds; were Shugart successful in his claim that the greenhouse was improperly destroyed pursuant to § 481.153 after the events that led to his arrest, his success would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. Neither is this claim barred by Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541-44, 101 S. Ct. 1908, 68 L. Ed. 2d 420 (1981), overruled in part by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S. Ct. 662, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1986), and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984). See Allen v. Thomas, 388 F.3d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that conduct is not random and unauthorized for purposes of Parratt/Hudson doctrine when defendants acted under power delegated by state). Because Shugart states a valid claim for a violation of his procedural due process rights when the allegations of his pro se complaint are accepted as true, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009), the district court erred by dismissing this claim against the unknown defendant officers. See Geiger, 404 F.3d at 373.