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)

Download PDF
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-

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?