Jeffrey Cohen v. Rod Rosenstein

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-03996-WDQ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999624362]. Mailed to: Jeffrey Brian Cohen CHESAPEAKE DETENTION FACILITY 401 East Madison Street Baltimore, MD 21202-0000. [15-6157]

Appeal: 15-6157

Doc: 14

Filed: 07/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6157

JEFFREY COHEN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
DAMIEN RILEY; CHRISTOPHER
BARBER; FAISAL MAPANGALA,

PALMER;

KENNETH

BAINES;

MARC

Plaintiffs,
v.
ROD ROSENSTEIN, US Attorney; HARRY GRUBER, Asst. US
Attorney; JOYCE MCDONALD, Asst. US Attorney; LEAH BRESSACK,
Asst. US Attorney; BRANDIS MARSH, Asst. US Attorney; MATTHEW
HOFF, Asst. US Attorney; RACHEL YASSER, Asst. US Attorney,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:14-cv-03996-WDQ)

Submitted:

June 11, 2015

Decided:

July 21, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-6157

Doc: 14

Filed: 07/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

Jeffrey Brian Cohen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6157

Doc: 14

Filed: 07/21/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey

Brian

Cohen

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

dismissing without prejudice, * under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A
(2012), his suit against federal prosecutors brought pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), and denying his motion pursuant to Rule
59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The district

court determined that Cohen’s complaint raised issues concerning
the validity of the government’s ongoing criminal case against
Cohen and, thus, should be dismissed without prejudice under the
principles of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and its
progeny.

Because no conviction has yet occurred, we conclude

that the district court’s dismissal under Heck is premature.
See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (rejecting notion
that

“an

action

which

would

impugn

an

anticipated

future

conviction cannot be brought until that conviction occurs and is
set aside”).

*

We have jurisdiction because Cohen cannot cure the defect
identified in his complaint by mere amendment. See Domino Sugar
Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th
Cir. 1993) (“Thus we hold that a plaintiff may not appeal the
dismissal of his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds
for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment in the
complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.”)
(brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).

3

Appeal: 15-6157

Doc: 14

Filed: 07/21/2015

Accordingly,

we

vacate

Pg: 4 of 4

the

district

court’s

remand for further proceedings in light of Wallace.

orders

and

See id. at

393-94 (“If a plaintiff files a false-arrest claim before he has
been convicted (or files any other claim related to rulings that
will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial),
it is within the power of the district court, and in accord with
common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal
case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.”).

In

considering the application of Wallace, the district court is
free

to

consider

whether

prejudice on the merits.
of

the

U.S.,

Inc.,

446

the

case

can

be

dismissed

with

See Sup. Ct. of Va. v. Consumers Union
U.S.

719,

736

(1980)

(noting

that

prosecutors are absolutely immune from monetary damages claims);
Allen v. Burke, 690 F.2d 376, 378 (4th Cir. 1982) (same); see
also Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th
Cir. 2002) (noting that a dismissal for failure to state a claim
under § 1915A(b) should be made with prejudice).

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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

4