Davis v. Falls et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER For the reasons stated in the court's memorandum opinion of February 4, 2016 (Doc. 4), and for the additional reasons listed within, plaintiff's motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 2/10/16. (SAC ) *Order placed in first class mail to pro se Plaintiff.
2016 Feb-10 PM 02:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
VINCENT EDWARD DAVIS,
BRANDON FALLS, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
reconsideration of the court’s opinion and order dismissing his
action with prejudice. Plaintiff argues that (1) defendants are not
entitled to immunity, (2) the court erred in relying on Heck v.
overruled, and (3) the statute of limitations does not bar his
action because his sentence was “clearly not authorized by law.”
(Doc. 6 at 2).
For the reasons stated in the court’s memorandum opinion of
February 4, 2016 (Doc. 4), and for these additional reasons,
reassignment entered in this case by Magistrate Judge Ott mentioned
dismissing the case did not rely on defendants’ immunity. Second,
while Heck v. Humphrey has been partially overruled, see Campos v.
City of Merced, 709 F. Supp. 2d 944, 961 (E.D. Cal. 2010), that
overruling only regards application of Heck to pending, non-final
plaintiff has submitted no authority supporting his contention that
a statute of limitations defense is inapplicable because he alleges
that his sentence was illegal. Plaintiff cites Bartone v. United
States, 375 U.S. 52 (1963), but that case involved a probation
revocation; it has no bearing on the statute of limitations in a §
1983 suit. Indeed, neither § 1983 or a statute of limitations is
mentioned at all in the opinion.
DONE this 10th day of February, 2016.
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?