Bell v. Ste. Genevieve County et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 4/8/2015. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
JOSHUA AARON BELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15CV18 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in
forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Having reviewed the complaint and plaintiff’s response to the Court’s show cause
Order, the Court finds that this action must be summarily dismissed.
The complaint contains various allegations about plaintiff’s arrest, the search of his
home, and his probation revocation. Plaintiff previously filed a civil action in which he alleges
that he was falsely arrested and the search of his home was unreasonable. Bell v. Ste. Genevieve
County, 1:14CV94 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.). On February 9, 2015, the Court ordered plaintiff to show
cause why the instant case should not be dismissed as duplicative of the earlier case.
Plaintiff responds that he is not challenging the actions of law enforcement in this action.
He says he is only challenging the revocation of his probation. He says he is now serving a tenyear sentence as a result of the revocation.
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court determined that where a
judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily implicate the validity of the plaintiff’s

conviction or the length of his sentence, a cause of action under § 1983 is not cognizable unless
the plaintiff can show that his underlying “conviction or sentence had been reversed on direct
appeal, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or called
into question by the issuance of a federal writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at 487. “Heck applies to
proceedings [that] call into question the fact or duration of parole.” Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d
175, 177 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 851 (1995). A plaintiff in a § 1983 suit may not
question the validity of the confinement resulting from a parole revocation hearing if he does not
allege that the parole board’s decision has been reversed, expunged, set aside or called into
question. Littles v. Bd. of Pardons and Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir.1995); see also
McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.1995) (Heck bars § 1983
action challenging revocation of supervised release). Plaintiff has not made any showing that the
decision to revoke his probation has been reversed, expunged, set aside or called into question.
As a result, the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 8th day of April, 2015.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2