The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10326
Conference Calendar
__________________
EZREE CROWLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
D BROWN, #7803; E SMITH, #2451; M J FALLS, #3820; CITY OF
DALLAS, TEXAS
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:94-CV-1170-P
- - - - - - - - - -
August 22, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ezree Crowley has appealed the dismissal, with prejudice, of
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. His complaint requests
damages for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious
prosecution relative to a burglary conviction for which he is
serving a lengthy sentence. We AFFIRM the district court's
judgment.
Crowley contends that the district court should have either
placed his action in abeyance or dismissed it without prejudice.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-10326
-2-
He argues that the dismissal with prejudice was contrary to Heck
v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). Crowley also asserts that
the district court should have allowed him "to present his
claim."
"Under Heck, when a state prisoner brings a § 1983 action
seeking damages, the trial court must first ascertain whether a
judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the § 1983 action would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence."
Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 283 (5th Cir. 1984). In the event
that "it would, the prisoner must show that his conviction has
been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by the grant of
a writ of habeas corpus, in order to state a claim." Id.
(citation and quotation marks omitted). If the prisoner cannot
make such a showing, his § 1983 action should be dismissed with
prejudice. Id. at 283-84. The court need no longer hold
proceedings in abeyance or dismiss without prejudice, because the
statute of limitations does not begin to run until the conviction
is invalidated. Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 27-28 (5th Cir.
1994).
Crowley concedes, as he must, that his burglary conviction
remains in effect. For the district court to have awarded him
damages on grounds that he was maliciously prosecuted for the
burglary "would necessarily imply the invalidity of [that]
conviction." Boyd, 31 F.3d at 283; see Pete v. Metcalfe, 8 F.3d
214, 219 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court was
correct in dismissing Crowley's § 1983 action with prejudice.
Boyd, 31 F.3d at 283-84.
No. 95-10326
-3-
AFFIRMED.