# Crowley v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · August 25, 1995 · 68 F.3d 464

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7557

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 25, 1995
- **Citations:** 68 F.3d 464; 1995 WL 581407
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7557

## Opinion text

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that this opinion should not be published.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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7557. Public record. Not legal advice.