Odell Ewing v. J. Silviou

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-cv-00064-F. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998867012]. Mailed to: Odell Ewing. [11-7683]

Appeal: 11-7683

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/04/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7683

ODELL EWING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
J. A. SILVIOUS, Officer of Raleigh Police Department; K.
KINNEY, Officer of Raleigh Police Department; RALEIGH
POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cv-00064-F)

Submitted:

May 18, 2012

Decided:

June 4, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified in part, vacated in part, and remanded by
unpublished per curiam opinion.

Odell Ewing, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7683

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/04/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Odell

Ewing

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2006).

To the extent

Ewing raised claims challenging the validity of his conviction,
the district court properly denied relief because Ewing has not
shown that his conviction has been overturned or called into
question.
Because

See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

Ewing

may

refile

those

claims

if

his

conviction

is

invalidated by an appropriate court, we modify the dismissal to
be without prejudice and affirm as modified.

We also affirm the

dismissal as frivolous of Ewing’s remaining claims, except for
his claim of excessive force, for the reasons stated by the
district

court.

See

Ewing

v.

Silvious,

No.

5:11-cv-00064-F

(E.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 2011).
Turning to Ewing’s excessive force claim, a district
court

must

dismiss

a

case

if

it

determines

the

action

“is

frivolous . . . [or] fails to state a claim upon which relief
may

be

granted.”

28

U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),

(ii).

“[A]

complaint . . . is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.”
325 (1989).

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not

“contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” sufficient to
2

Appeal: 11-7683

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/04/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

“allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal,

556

omitted).

U.S.

662,

678

(2009)

(internal

Ashcroft v.

quotation

marks

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that

the district court erred by dismissing Ewing’s excessive force
claim.

See Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 254 (4th Cir.

2004) (reviewing dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for abuse of
discretion); De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir.
2003) (reviewing dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo).
In his complaint, Ewing alleged that Officer Silvious
used excessive force against him by applying pepper spray while
he was handcuffed and by refusing to provide water to wash the
spray from his face; he also claimed to have suffered physical
injury.

This claim does not run afoul of Heck, as its success

would not invalidate Ewing’s conviction.

Although the record is

unclear as to the point at which Silvious placed Ewing under
arrest, see Orem v. Rephann, 523 F.3d 442, 446 (4th Cir. 2008)
(discussing

standards

Fourth

Fourteenth

and

sufficient

to

survive

for

excessive

Amendments),
frivolousness

force
Ewing’s
review,

claims

under

the

allegations

are

see

Neitzke,

490

U.S. at 325, and to establish “more than the mere possibility of
misconduct” by Silvious.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal
of

Ewing’s

excessive

force

claim
3

and

remand

for

further

Appeal: 11-7683

Doc: 14

proceedings. *
district

Filed: 06/04/2012

We

affirm,

court’s

as

judgment

appointment of counsel.

Pg: 4 of 4

modified,
and

deny

the

remainder

Ewing’s

of

request

the
for

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

*

This disposition, of course, should not be interpreted as
indicating any view as to the legal or factual merit of Ewing’s
claim of excessive force.
It simply reflects our conclusion
that on the sparse record before it, the district court
prematurely dismissed this pro se claim as frivolous.

4