Robert Lee Brock, A/K/A Two Souls Walker v. Raymond Robertson, District Attorney For Staunton Circuit Court, 70 F.3d 1260, 4th Cir. (1995)

This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The plaintiff, Robert Lee Brock, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that a prosecutor lied during his sentencing about his criminal history. The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous, finding the prosecutor immune. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, but on different grounds, finding that the claim could not be brought under § 1983 until Brock's conviction or sentence was invalidated on those grounds, per Heck v. Humphrey. Therefore, the complaint was properly dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) for lacking a legal basis.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

26 views2 pages

Robert Lee Brock, A/K/A Two Souls Walker v. Raymond Robertson, District Attorney For Staunton Circuit Court, 70 F.3d 1260, 4th Cir. (1995)

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 2

70 F.

3d 1260

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation

of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
Robert Lee BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker, PlaintiffAppellant,
v.
Raymond ROBERTSON, District Attorney for Staunton
Circuit
Court, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 95-3902.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 1995.
Decided: November 30, 1995.

Robert Lee Brock, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a district court order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983 (1988) action as frivolous. We affirm.

Appellant claimed that a prosecutor lied during sentencing regarding

Appellant's criminal history. The district court dismissed the complaint as
frivolous on the basis of the prosecutor's immunity. We affirm the district
court, although on different grounds. McMahan v. International Ass'n. of
Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, 964 F.2d 1462, 1467 (4th
Cir.1992) (Appellate courts may "affirm a judgment for any reason appearing
on the record, notwithstanding that the reason was not addressed below.").

Because Appellant's claim would directly implicate invalidity in Appellant's

conviction and sentence, it may not be the subject of a Sec. 1983 claim until the
conviction or sentence has been invalidated on that ground. Heck v. Humphrey,
--- U.S. ----, ----, 62 U.S.L.W. 4594, 4597 (U.S. June 24, 1994) (No. 93-6188).
Appellant's sentence has not been so invalidated; thus, this Sec. 1983 action is
not yet cognizable. Id. The complaint was subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1915(d) (1988) because it has no legal basis.

We affirm the order dismissing Appellant's claim without prejudice. We deny

Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel and to amend his claim and
submit new evidence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED