Lawson v. Molder ( 1995 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60192
Conference Calendar
__________________
JAMES BERNARD LAWSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DENNIS MOLDER and JAMES DAVIS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:94-cv-366BN
- - - - - - - - - -
June 30, 1995
Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Lawson appeals the dismissal of his action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous. This court addressed Lawson's
illegal-arrest contention in an earlier case. We determined that
Lawson's illegal-arrest claim called into question the validity
of his conviction and was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct.
2364 (1994). If a claim falls under Heck, a would-be § 1983
plaintiff has no cause of action until he can show that his
conviction has been invalidated. Id. at 2373.
The use at trial of unreliable identification evidence
*
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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-60192
-2-
obtained by police through unnecessarily suggestive procedures
violates a defendant's right to due process. Neil v. Biggers,
409 U.S. 188, 199 (1972); Passman v. Blackburn, 652 F.2d 559, 569
(5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 (1982). Because
judgment in favor of Lawson on either his illegal-arrest claim or
his tainted-lineup claim would imply the invalidity of his
conviction, the district court properly dismissed those claims
pursuant to Heck.
Pursuant to Heck, district courts should not dismiss
§ 1983 actions for failure to pursue habeas corpus remedies or
stay § 1983 actions for exhaustion of habeas remedies. See Heck,
114 S. Ct. at 2373. Lawson's contention that the district court
should have stayed his lawsuit therefore is without merit.
Lawson seeks release from prison. By his own admission,
Lawson's state post-conviction application for relief was pending
when he filed his complaint. To the extent that Lawson seeks
habeas corpus relief, the district court should have dismissed
his claims without prejudice so that he could exhaust state-law
remedies. McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158,
161 (5th Cir. 1995). We modify the district court's judgment to
operate without prejudice to Lawson's ability to exhaust state-
law remedies and pursue federal habeas corpus remedies. See id.We affirm the district court's judgment in all other respects.
Lawson is warned that he will be sanctioned if he files
frivolous appeals in the future. See Smith v. McCleod, 946 F.2d
No. 95-60192
-3-
417, 418 (5th Cir. 1991); Jackson v. Carpenter, 921 F.2d 68, 69
(5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.