STOKES v. N.J. STATE PAROLE BOARD MEMBERS et al

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER Denying Plaintiff's request to reopen the Complaint docketed at ECF No. 12 . Signed by Judge Edward S. Kiel on 3/7/2025. (dmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JACQUAR STOKES,

Case No. 20–cv–03881–ESK–AMD

Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION AND ORDER

N.J. STATE PAROLE BOARD
MEMBERS, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Jacquar Stokes submitted a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 on March 20, 2020 (Complaint). (ECF No. 1.) He alleged that he was
kidnapped and transported across state lines with a fraudulent indictment and
administratively tagged as a parolee and incarcerated at a “staged” quasijudicial hearing. (Id. p. 10.) The Complaint challenged both the underlying
parole revocation arrest and subsequent hearing that placed him back in New
Jersey state prison.
District Judge Noel L. Hillman screened the Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (ECF No. 10.) On September 27, 2021, Judge
Hillman concluded that plaintiff’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994) because “a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in this case would
completely erode the basis for his revocation of parole, implying that the
revocation was invalid.” (Id. p. 8 (cleaned up).) Judge Hillman dismissed the
Complaint without prejudice and denied leave to amend. (ECF No. 11.)
Plaintiff filed a request to reopen the Complaint on March 5, 2025. (ECF
No. 12.) I will deny the request. Plaintiff’s letter does not provide any
information about the status of his parole revocation proceedings, i.e., whether
they have been reversed on direct appeal, declared invalid by a state tribunal,
or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
See Connolly v. Arroyo, 293 F. App’x 175, 177–78 (3d Cir. 2008). Therefore,
the impediment identified by Judge Hillman still exists; the Complaint remains
barred by Heck. Even if plaintiff is now able to allege facts showing that Heck

no longer applies, he must file a new civil rights complaint. See Ball v.
Angellucci, No. 24–cv–05577, 2025 WL 28240, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2025).
IT IS on this

7th day of March 2025 ORDERED that:

1.
Plaintiff’s request to reopen the Complaint docketed at ECF No. 12
is denied.
2.
The denial is without prejudice to plaintiff filing a new civil rights
complaint in the event the parole revocation has been reversed, vacated, or
otherwise invalidated.
3.
The Clerk shall send a copy of this Opinion and Order to plaintiff by
regular mail.
/s/ Edward S. Kiel
EDWARD S. KIEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2