Kevin Jackson v. Baltimore City Police Dept.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999241951-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-02933-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999327254]. Mailed to: Kevin Jackson. [13-7798]

Appeal: 13-7798

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/01/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7798

KEVIN JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPT.; LAMAIRE
GARY GALING; NICOLE HUNTER, Detective,

BYFIELD,

Detective;

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-02933-RDB)

Submitted:

March 28, 2014

Decided:

April 1, 2014

Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished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

Kevin Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7798

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/01/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Kevin

Jackson

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
argues

that

the

district

court

improperly

dismissed

He
his

complaint on the basis that his claims would necessarily imply
the invalidity of an anticipated future conviction, relying on
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

We review de novo this

dismissal for failure to state a claim, assuming that all wellpleaded nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint are
true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences in Jackson’s
favor.

Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 391 (4th Cir.

2011).

After

part,

vacate

thoroughly

reviewing

in

and

part,

the

remand

record,

the

case

we

affirm

for

in

further

proceedings.
We agree with Jackson that the favorable termination
rule announced in Heck did not bar his action while criminal
proceedings in the state court remained pending.

Wallace v.

Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (noting that Heck does not bar a
§

1983

action

where

it

“would

conviction” (emphasis omitted)).

impugn

an

anticipated

future

Jackson, however, has now been

convicted of assault, one of the state court charges underlying
his claim.
As the district court noted, Heck bars a § 1983 action
if

it

is

clear

that

success
2

would

necessarily

imply

the

Appeal: 13-7798

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/01/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

invalidity of the plaintiff’s conviction.

This determination

requires a close factual examination of the record related to
the

underlying

conviction.

See

Heck,

512

U.S.

at

487

n.7

(noting that an unreasonable search claim may be permitted to
proceed,

even

Ballenger

v.

(conducting

if

the

Owens,

evidence

352

thorough

F.3d

was
842,

factual

introduced
846-47

inquiry

into

(4th

at

trial);

Cir.

evidence

2003)
against

plaintiff to conclude that success on unreasonable search claim
would

necessarily

conviction).

The

imply
record

invalidity
is

unclear

as

of

his

underlying

to

whether

Jackson’s

illegal search and seizure claim is barred by Heck’s favorable
termination rule. 1

Because this determination should be made in

the first instance by the district court, we vacate and remand
the district court’s dismissal of this claim. 2
We

conclude,

however,

that

Jackson’s

suppression

of

evidence allegation is now subject to dismissal under Heck, and
we decline to remand it.

Moreover, it is clear from Jackson’s

1

Jackson has abandoned his claim that police violated his
rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), by failing
to brief it in this Court.
4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review
to issues raised in brief); see Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that failure to
raise issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of that
issue).
2

By this disposition, we indicate
appropriate resolution of this inquiry.

3

no

view

as

to

the

Appeal: 13-7798

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/01/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

own allegations and exhibits that police had probable cause to
arrest him on the original charges.

We therefore affirm as

modified the district court’s dismissal of these claims.

See MM

ex rel. DM v. School Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523,
536 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e are entitled to affirm the court’s
judgment on alternate grounds, if such grounds are apparent from
the record.”).
We

therefore

affirm

in

part,

vacate

in

part,

remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
deny Jackson’s motion to appoint counsel.

and
We

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the material before this court and argument will
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

4