Azaniah Blankumsee v. Washington County Circuit Ct., No. 18-6827 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6827 AZANIAH BLANKUMSEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; JUDGE DONALD EUGENE BEACHLEY; JUDGE DANA WRIGHT; MARK BOYER, Judge; WASHINGTON COUNTY STATES ATTORNEY; JOSEPH MICHAEL; LARRY HOGAN, Maryland Governor, individually and in official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:18-cv-01509-PWG) Submitted: November 29, 2018 Decided: December 13, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Azaniah Blankumsee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Azaniah Blankumsee appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. His sole claim on appeal is that the district court failed to address his claims for injunctive relief. Upon review, we conclude that these claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005) (holding that “a state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)—if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration”). Because Blankumsee may refile his claims for injunctive relief should his conviction ever be overturned or called into question by the appropriate court, we modify the district court’s order to reflect that the claims for injunctive relief are dismissed without prejudice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED 2