Nathaniel Banks, Jr. v. Philip Kohn

MEMORANDUM

Nathaniel Banks appeals the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The complaint alleged 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims against various Nevada government defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

To recover for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction, “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.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Banks’ § 1983 claims allege actions that, if true, would necessarily invalidate his conviction. But his conviction has not been overturned, expunged, or declared invalid. For this reason, Banks’s § 1983 claims must be dismissed under Heck .

Banks cites several cases as exceptions to Heck’s favorable termination requirement, but his arguments are unconvincing. This case is closely analogous to our decision in Guerrero v. Gates, where we stated that the § 1983 plaintiff…