Michael Moravitz v. Richard Anderson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00506-GBL-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999792210]. [15-1814]

Appeal: 15-1814

Doc: 22

Filed: 04/11/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1814

MICHAEL MORAVITZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RICHARD ANDERSON, Officer,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00506-GBL-JFA)

Submitted:

February 29, 2016

Decided:

April 11, 2016

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

S. W. Dawson, DAWSON, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Jamie M. Greenzweig, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1814

Doc: 22

Filed: 04/11/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael
granting

Moravitz

Richard

appeals

Anderson’s

the

motion

district
to

dismiss

court’s

order

Moravitz’s

42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint as barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994).

Moravitz contends that his unlawful-arrest

claim is not precluded by Heck.
“We

review

de

novo

the

We agree.
district

court’s

dismissal

of

a

complaint under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(b)(6) for failure to state
a claim.”

Andon, LLC v. City of Newport News, No. 14-2358, ___

F.3d

2016

___,

WL

502714,

at

*2

(4th

Cir.

2016).

“When

reviewing the district court’s action, we consider the factual
allegations in the plaintiff[’s] complaint as true.”

Id.

Under Heck, if a state prisoner’s successful § 1983 claim
“‘would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence,’” the claim is not cognizable unless he demonstrates
that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated.

Young v.

Nickols, 413 F.3d 416, 419 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Heck, 512
U.S. at 487).

“A would-be plaintiff who is no longer in custody

may bring a § 1983 claim undermining the validity of a prior
conviction only if he lacked access to federal habeas corpus
while in custody.”

Griffin v. Balt. Police Dep’t, 804 F.3d 692,

697 (4th Cir. 2015).
Here, Moravitz’s criminal sentence only involved a monetary
fine; he was not sentenced to a term of incarceration.
2

Thus,

Appeal: 15-1814

Doc: 22

Filed: 04/11/2016

irrespective
invalidity

of
of

demonstrates
conclude

whether
Moravitz’s

that

that

Heck

his

Pg: 3 of 3

success

conviction

conviction

does

necessarily

not

bar

or

implies

whether

has

been

his

§ 1983

the

Moravitz

invalidated,
claim

we

because

Moravitz “could [not] have practicably sought habeas relief.”
Covey v. Assessor of Ohio Cty., 777 F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir.
2015); see Leather v. Eyck, 180 F.3d 420, 424 (2d Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED

3