Jhon Lora v. Baylor


NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-3297 __________ JHON LORA*; CRAIG ALFORD; LUIS MEDINA*; CHRISTOPHER J. KLEMENT*; MIGUEL EDUARDO ROSARIO*; HOWARD WOLFE*; DAMAON WEBSTER*; JUSTIN COATE*, Appellant *(Parties Dismissed by Clerk on 12/18/20) v. LT. BAYLOR, Director of Monroe County Correctional Facility; GARY HAIDLE, Warden of Monroe County Correctional Facility; MR. ARMOND, Sgt. at Monroe County Correctional Facility; GEORGE WARDEN, Clerk at Monroe County Correctional Facility ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-20-cv-01787) District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 16, 2021 Before: JORDAN, MATEY and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 19, 2021) ___________ OPINION * ___________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Pro se appellant Craig Alford appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint. For the reasons detailed below, we will vacate the District Court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. Craig Alford, 1 a pretrial detainee at the Monroe County Correctional Facility (MCCF), filed a complaint in the District Court alleging that MCCF officials and a clerk at the Monroe County Courthouse violated his constitutional rights by detaining him without holding an arraignment as required by Pa. R. Crim. P. 571. 2 Alford sought money damages. Along with his complaint, Alford filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The District Court granted the motion to proceed IFP and then dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court concluded that Alford’s claims were barred by the favorable-termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 3 The Court observed that Alford had not yet been convicted, but concluded that, 1 Several other pretrial detainees held at MCCF also signed the complaint. They did not, however, sign the notice of appeal and are thus not part of this appeal. See generally Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 883 (3d Cir. 1991). This opinion will therefore discuss only Alford’s claims. 2 In his brief, Alford makes additional arguments, but because he did not assert those arguments in the District Court, we will not consider them. See Tri-M Grp., LLC v. Sharp, 638 F.3d 406, 416 (3d Cir. 2011). 3 In Heck, the Supreme Court held that “a prisoner cannot use § 1983 to obtain damages where success would necessarily imply the unlawfulness of a (not previously invalidated) conviction or sentence.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005). 2 for Heck purposes, “there is no difference between a conviction which is outstanding at the time the civil rights action is instituted and a potential conviction on a pending charge that may be entered at some point thereafter.” Op. at 7 (quoting Smith v. Holtz, 87 F.3d 108, 113 (3d Cir. 1996)). Alford filed a timely notice of appeal. In this Court, he has filed a …

Original document

Add comment


Recent Posts

Recent Comments