CA5: Ptf’s underlying conviction is attacked by his 4A claim and thus barred by Heck

“We begin with Price’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claims as alleged in his proposed amended complaint. The district court concluded that Price’s claims, even as amended, remained ‘inseparable’ from his conviction for battery of an officer and, thus, were barred by Heck. We agree.” Price v. City Of Bossier, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 150 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2021).*

CoA denied. “Here, Walker is attacking the underlying judgment of the state trial court rather than any action in the district court that is governed by this rule. Moreover, Walker’s bare unsupported allegation that the state trial judge was attempting to conceal evidentiary information by transferring the case to another judge for a determination on the suppression motion according to state court rules does not support a finding of fraudulent conduct. Based on the above, a reasonable jurist could not conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying Walker’s Rule 60(d)(3) motion.” Walker v. Mazza, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 169 (6th Cir. Jan. 5, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.