Reported / Citable
Background
Federal inmate Naasson Hazzard was convicted of kidnapping resulting in death and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence, and a separate motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 remained pending.
Hazzard then sued the United States and federal actors involved in his criminal case, alleging an unlawful search and seizure, unlawful detention and prosecution, suppression of exculpatory evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial misconduct. He sought damages and relief including suppression of evidence, vacatur of his conviction, dismissal of the indictment, and the granting of his appeal.
The Court’s Holding
In findings, conclusions, and a recommendation—not a final judgment—Magistrate Judge Brian McKay concluded that Hazzard’s constitutional claims should be treated as Bivens claims because they concerned federal entities and officials. The magistrate judge determined that success on any claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of Hazzard’s kidnapping conviction.
Because Hazzard had not shown that his conviction was reversed, expunged, invalidated, or otherwise set aside, the magistrate judge concluded that Heck v. Humphrey barred the claims. He recommended dismissing the complaint with prejudice as frivolous until the Heck conditions are satisfied, counting the dismissal as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and warning Hazzard that further abusive or frivolous filings could result in sanctions. He also concluded that amendment would be futile.
Key Takeaways
- Heck’s favorable-termination requirement applies to Bivens claims that would undermine a federal conviction.
- A pending collateral challenge does not satisfy Heck; the conviction must already have been invalidated or otherwise set aside.
- The magistrate judge recommended a Heck-based dismissal, a prisoner-litigation strike, and a warning about sanctions for future abusive filings.
Why It Matters
The recommendation reinforces that a federal prisoner generally cannot use a civil-rights damages action to obtain relief that would necessarily call an outstanding conviction into question. The prisoner must first secure relief from the conviction through direct appeal, habeas proceedings, or another recognized avenue.
It also illustrates the procedural consequences of screening prisoner complaints: a Heck-barred action may be deemed legally frivolous, dismissed without leave to amend when amendment would be futile, and counted toward the three-strikes limit on in forma pauperis litigation.