Antonio Ausler v. Wes Bradford, No. 17-2487 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Preservice dismissal of plaintiff's Section 1983 action affirmed without comment; plaintiff's claim that because he was not incarcerated at the time he filed his complaint his claims for damages were not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 513 U.S. 477 (1994) is precluded by circuit precedent. [ January 09, 2018

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2487 ___________________________ Antonio Ausler lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Wes Bradford; CPL. James Collins; State of Arkansas; Timothy Bunch; Lee Short; Dan (Charles) Hancock; Ronald Davis, Jr.; Honorable John Putman lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison ____________ Submitted: January 3, 2018 Filed: January 10, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Antonio Ausler appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal of his civil rights action, brought under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having carefully reviewed 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons explained by the district court. See Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal reviewed de novo). Further, we find that Ausler’s argument on appeal--that, because he was not incarcerated when he filed his complaint, his claims for damages were not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)--is precluded by circuit precedent. See Newmy v. Johnson, 758 F.3d 1008, 1011-12 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting that Heck’s favorable-termination rule applies when § 1983 plaintiff is no longer incarcerated). Accordingly, we deny Ausler’s motion for oral argument, and we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.