Davis v. Falls et al

Filing 7

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.

Download PDF
FILED 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 SOUTHERN DIVISION VINCENT EDWARD DAVIS, } } } } } } } } } Plaintiff, v. BRANDON FALLS, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-103-WMA MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 6) for 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. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because that case has been 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, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. First, while the order of reassignment entered in this case by Magistrate Judge Ott mentioned a likely immunity defense, this court’s opinion and order 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 1 overruling only regards application of Heck to pending, non-final convictions, not final convictions as in this case. Third, 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 2

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?