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.

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