Echols

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

WAYLON LEE ECHOLS PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 5:26-CV-5023

ARKANSAS POST PRISON

TRANSFER BOARD;

ARKANSAS PAROLE BOARD;

LONA H. MCCASTLAIN;

and JOHN FELTS DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 9) by United

States Magistrate Judge Christy Comstock, recommending that Plaintiff Waylon Lee

Echols’s original Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed without prejudice on preservice

screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim on which relief can be

granted. Mr. Echols did not file objections to the R&R. Instead, he filed an Amended

Complaint (Doc. 12). The Amended Complaint eliminates separate claims against the

Arkansas Parole Board and John Felts but maintains claims against the Arkansas Post

Prison Transfer Board and Lona H. McCastlain in her individual capacity.

According to both the original and amended Complaints, Mr. Echols asserts that

he was arrested on charges that formed the basis for revoking his parole two weeks later.

Though these underlying charges were nolle prossed, Mr. Echols was still convicted for

violating his parole. The Amended Complaint explains that Mr. Echols appealed the parole

revocation to Ms. McCastlain, the Chairman of the Parole Board, but she affirmed the

revocation decision. Nevertheless, Mr. Echols maintains that his constitutional rights were

violated when his parole was revoked and he was denied a fair hearing.

The R&R explains that under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994):

in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness

would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove

that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized

to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

Heck also applies to claims that imply the invalidity of a parole revocation. See Newmy v.

Johnson, 758 F.3d 1008, 1011–12 (8th Cir. 2014). In the case at bar, Mr. Echols has not

alleged in either his original or amended Complaint his parole revocation was reversed,

expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

The claims in both pleadings are Heck-barred.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 9) is ADOPTED IN ITS

ENTIRETY, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim,

and Plaintiff is warned that, in the future, this dismissal may be counted as a strike for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Thus, the Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike

flag on the case for future judicial consideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED on this 6th day of April, 2026.

/s/ Timothy L. Brooks

TIMOTHY L. BROOKS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE