Belcher v. Myatt, 7:12-cv-00346

Belcher, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed a Bivens complaint in the Western District of Virginia seeking damages and equitable relief for alleged constitutional violations during his federal prosecution.
Defendants named include AUSA Janine M. Myatt, AUSA Randy Ramseyer, court reporters Willa J. Faris and Bridget A. Dickert, and ATF Special Agent Duke.
Plaintiff challenges conduct in the underlying criminal proceedings, including alleged improper grand jury proceedings, false transcripts, and unlawful searches and seizures.
In United States v. Belcher, 1:10-cr-00017 (W.D. Va. Jan. 20, 2011), he was investigated for felon-in-possession and related offenses; he pled guilty to Counts A, B, and Count 2, with Count 1 dismissed, and forfeiture was ordered.
Plaintiff contends the forfeiture record and transcript inaccuracies violated his rights, and he also pursues a 2255 motion; the court dismissed the Bivens complaint without prejudice.
The court applied Heck v. Humphrey and related Fifth/Sixth Amendment doctrines to bar relief that would imply invalidity of the criminal judgment, leading to dismissal without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Heck bars Bivens relief here	Belcher argues defendants’ actions would entitle him to relief separate from the criminal judgment	Defendants contend success would invalidate the judgment, so Heck bars relief	Yes, Heck bars relief because success would imply invalidity of the criminal judgment
Whether the claims against prosecutors and agents are cognizable under Bivens	Belcher asserts negligence/malicious prosecution and improper recording	Prosecutors enjoy immunity; improper recording claims fail	Claims barred or fail to state a claim; dismissal without prejudice
Whether the complaint states a plausible federal claim under Rule 12(b)(6)	Belcher alleges procedural rights violations and due process issues	Complaint fails to plead facts showing plausible entitlement to relief	Claim insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal; dismissal without prejudice

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court 1989) (frivolous or malicious claims may be dismissed)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (context-specific plausibility; not all allegations are entitled to presumption of truth)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court 1994) (holding that § 1983/Bivens relief cannot set aside an conviction without favorable termination)
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court 2005) (constructs favorable termination requirement in Heck framework)
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274 (4th Cir. 1985) (court may dismiss pro se pleadings that fail to state a claim)
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978) (pro se pleadings require more than conclusory statements to state a claim)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court 1976) (prosecutorial immunity from malicious prosecution claims)