Charles Holmes v. John Pollock
695 F. App'x 69
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Charles Womba Holmes, a Texas prisoner convicted of sexual assault of a child, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit claiming a defendant improperly recorded a phone call with the minor victim without a warrant, court order, or parental consent.
- Holmes argued the recording’s improper admission violated his constitutional rights but did not seek to directly invalidate his conviction.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim, concluding the claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
- On direct appeal of his conviction Holmes had argued insufficiency of the evidence based on inconsistent testimony and alleged fabrication; the jury deliberated nine hours before conviction.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and held that granting Holmes § 1983 relief would necessarily call into question the validity of his conviction, so Heck barred the action.
- The dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Holmes was warned about accumulating three strikes and losing IFP filing privileges absent imminent danger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holmes's § 1983 challenge to an allegedly improperly recorded call is barred by Heck | Holmes: his claims challenge only evidentiary error and do not seek to invalidate his conviction; any recording error was harmless given other evidence | District court/Fifth Circuit: allowing relief would necessarily undermine the conviction, so Heck bars recovery | Heck bars Holmes's § 1983 claims because success would imply invalidity of his conviction |
| Whether dismissal without leave to amend was reversible error | Holmes: dismissal should have allowed amendment | Court: because Heck bars the claims, any failure to permit amendment was harmless | Dismissal without amendment was harmless error given Heck bar |
| Whether the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g) | Holmes: (implicitly) not disputed | Court: dismissal for failure to state a claim is a strike | Dismissal counts as a strike; warned about consequences |
| Standard of review for § 1915A(b)(1) dismissals on appeal | Holmes: N/A | Court: appellate review is de novo | Court applied de novo review (citing precedent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 damages claiming unconstitutional conviction are barred unless conviction has been invalidated)
- Green v. Atkinson, 623 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of § 1915A(b)(1) dismissal)
- Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053 (5th Cir. 1998) (dismissal harmless when claim is Heck-barred)
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (dismissal for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under § 1915(g))