Maskell v. Green et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
ADAM MASKELL 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 1:23-cv-1064
DEPUTY ANDY GREEN, et al. 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable
Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No.
41. Judge Bryant recommends that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34) be granted and
Plaintiff’s 	Second 	Amended 	Complaint 	(ECF 	No. 	33) 	be 	dismissed 	without 	prejudice.
Specifically, Judge Bryant recommends finding that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine
outlined in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), which holds that claims alleging
unconstitutional actions whose success would render a conviction invalid require first showing
that the conviction has been reversed, expunged, or declared invalid in some manner. Judge Bryant
reasons that Plaintiff’s claims, if successful, would invalidate his conviction and that Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate that the conviction has already been rendered invalid.0F
1
Plaintiff filed a timely objection. ECF No. 44. However, Plaintiff erroneously argues that
because he seeks relief other than overturning his conviction, such as compensatory and punitive
damages, his claims are not barred by the Heck doctrine. That reasoning ignores the reality that
for Plaintiff to be entitled to such relief, he must prevail on his various 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims
that he asserts should result in his State conviction being overturned.1F
2 ECF No. 33, p. 4-8. For a
1 Judge Bryant notes that Plaintiff pled guilty in the Arkansas criminal prosecution that emerged from the events
underlying Plaintiff’s claims. See State v. Maskell, 06CR-22-25.
2 Plaintiff’s claims allege violations of his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and that the violations
resulted in his conviction in the State prosecution. ECF No. 33, p. 4-8.
Case 1:23-cv-01064-SOH Document 47 Filed 01/31/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
§ 1983 claim that suggests the invalidity of a conviction, the “favorable-termination” principle
requires a plaintiff to prove that the conviction has already been invalidated in some manner and
that failure to do so requires dismissal of the claim. Mitchell v. Kirchmeier, 28 F.4th 888, 895 (8th
Cir. 2022) (citing Heck, 512 U.S. at 487). Plaintiff has made no such showing and his claims must
be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Judge Bryant’s R&R (ECF No. 41) should be and is
hereby adopted in toto. 	Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34) is hereby GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 31st day of January, 2025.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:23-cv-01064-SOH Document 47 Filed 01/31/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>