Smith v. Brooks
ORDER adopting in their entirety 5 the proposed findings and recommendations; dismissing without prejudice Smith's petition; counting this dismissal as a "strike"; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 10/31/2017. (kdr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
BRAD PAUL SMITH
CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00226 BSM
FRANKIE N. BROOKS
The proposed findings and recommendations [Doc. No. 5] submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney and plaintiff Brad Smith’s objections [Doc. No. 7] have
After de novo review of the record, the proposed findings and
recommendations are adopted in their entirety. Although Smith provides additional facts
in his objections, his section 1983 claim is nonetheless precluded by Edwards v. Balisok, 520
U.S. 641 (1997) and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Accordingly, Smith’s petition
is dismissed without prejudice. He may reassert his claim for damages if his disciplinary
conviction is later invalidated.
Dismissal of this action counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3), it is certified that an in forma pauperis appeal from
this order would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of October 2017.
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?