Wilcox v. Drew County Sheriff Department et al

Filing 5

ORDER granting #4 Motion to reopen. Wilcox's claims are Heck-barred. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Newmy v. Johnson, 758 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2014). Wilcox's complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal counts as a "strike". An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 10/8/2019. (jak)

IN THE UNI TED STATES DIST RIC T COU RT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARK ANS AS
PINE BLUFF DIV ISIO N
PLAINTIFF

ROBERT SCO TT WILCOX
ADC #163497
v.

No. 5:19-cv-288-DPM

DREW COU NTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, and DREW COU NTY
CIRCUIT COU RT

DEF END ANT S

ORDER

1. The petit ion to revo ke Wilc ox's susp ende d sente nce was
case
dism issed for lack of evide nce; and a newl y filed petit ion in that
en,
omit s the alleg ation s at the hear t of this case. His moti on to reop
NQ4, is there fore gran ted.

n't
2. Wilc ox says he was unla wful ly arres ted for drug s that were
t and
his. He says his paro le was revo ked base d on the unla wful arres
He
that the Defe ndan ts also tried to revo ke his susp ende d sente nce.
Circ uit
sued the Drew Coun ty Sher iff's Depa rtme nt and Drew Coun ty
Cour t seek ing dam ages . NQ 2.
Wilc ox's claim s are Heck-barred. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
). A
486-87 (1994); New my v . Johnson, 758 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2014
his
judg men t in Wilc ox's favo r wou ld nece ssari ly call into ques tion
n has
paro le revo catio n; and Wilc ox hasn 't alleg ed that the revo catio

been rever sed, expu nged , or inval idate d. Furth er, neith er the Drew
Coun ty Sheriff's Office nor the Drew Coun ty Circu it Cour t is an entity
subject to suit unde r 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ketchum v. City of West Memphis,
974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992); Midfelt v. Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri, 827 F.2d 343,345 (8th Cir. 1987). Wilcox's comp laint there fore
fails to state a claim.
3. Wilcox's comp laint will be dism issed witho ut prejudice. This
dismi ssal coun ts as a "strik e" unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An in forma

pauperis appe al from this Orde r and accom pany ing Judg ment woul d
not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
So Orde red.
D.P. Mars hall Jf
Unite d States District Judg e

-2-