GRAY v. SKALLA et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LINWOOD GRAY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 25-4155 (UNA)
)
BARBARA S. SKALLA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff brings this action against the three former Assistant United States Attorneys, four
former agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and one former member of a District of
Columbia Task Force in their official and individual capacities. See Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 2.
He alleges that, between January 10, 1995, and February 21, 1995, Defendants “deliberately and
knowingly utilized fabricated testimonial evidence to falsely convict [him].” Id. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants not only “relied upon scripted fabricated testimony,” id. at 3, of a paid
government information, id. at 2, but also withheld exculpatory evidence, see id. at 3. As a
result, Plaintiff alleges, he “endured a wrongful conviction and served 26.5 years of
incarceration, followed by four years of supervised release, all under the shadow of a conviction
obtained through deceit.” Id. For alleged violations of constitutionally protected rights, Plaintiff
demands a declaratory judgment and an award of compensatory and punitive damages. See id. at
4.
The Court understands Plaintiff to bring claims against Defendants in their individual
capacities under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). These claims cannot proceed pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994), which held:
Case 1:25-cv-04155-UNA Document 3 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 2

2
[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,
a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has
been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance
of a writ of habeas corpus.
Id. at 486–487; Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340–41 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (applying the Heck rule
to Bivens actions). Plaintiff’s success in this civil action necessarily implies that his conviction
was invalid. And absent a showing that his conviction or sentence has been reversed or
otherwise invalidated, his Bivens claim against Defendants in their individual capacities fails.
See Gowadia v. Internal Revenue Serv., 87 F. Supp. 3d 188, 190 (D.D.C. 2015) (“Because
Plaintiff's convictions have not been invalidated in any prior proceeding, Heck bars this suit.”);
Poynter v. Russo, No. 13-cv-1129 EGS, 2013 WL 4052784, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2013) (sua
sponte dismissal under Heck where plaintiff did not establish conviction had been overturned).
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities also fail. He purports to
proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute which does not apply to federal officials acting under
color of federal law. See Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
The court will GRANT Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2)
and DISMISS the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). An Order is issued separately.
/s/
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
DATE: March 20, 2026 United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-04155-UNA Document 3 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 2