Griffin v. Hill et al

Filing 12

ORDER adopting in their entirety 4 the proposed findings and recommendation; dismissing Griffin's petition without prejudice; 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 8/24/2018. (kdr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
ASHLEY GRIFFIN
ADC #755420
v.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 5:18-CV-00159 BSM

PAMELA HILL, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The proposed findings and recommendations [Doc. No. 4] submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney and plaintiff Ashley Griffin’s objections [Doc. No. 7]
have been reviewed. After de novo review of the record, the proposed findings and
recommendations are adopted in their entirety. Although Griffin appears to clarify in her
objections that she was challenging the duration of her parole and not the length of her
incarceration, her section 1983 claim is nonetheless precluded by Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994). See Allen v. Missouri Parole Bd., No. 4:17-CV-2253 JMB, 2017 WL
3531381, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 17, 2017) (“Heck applies to decisions concerning parole.”) (citing
Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43 (8th Cir. 1995)). Accordingly, Griffin’s petition is dismissed

without prejudice. She may reassert her claim if her sentence 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 24th day of August 2018.
_________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE