Michael Parkins v. Detective Alison Nguyen, No. 18-3547 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Wollman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner Civil Rights. Plaintiff's claims for damages arising from his arrest and prosecution were barred by Heck v. Humphrey; excessive force claims failed under the relevant factors; denial of the Heck-barred claims modified to be without prejudice. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3547 ___________________________ Michael Justin Parkins lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Detective Alison Nguyen; Detective Chad Pomietlo; Detective Roy Brooks, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: July 29, 2019 Filed: August 1, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Arkansas inmate Michael Justin Parkins appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment. Viewing the 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. evidence and reasonable inferences in Parkins’s favor, we agree that defendants were entitled to summary judgment. See Faulkner v. Douglas Cty., Neb., 906 F.3d 728, 732 (8th Cir. 2018) (de novo review). Specifically, we agree that Parkins’s claims for damages arising from his arrest and prosecution were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); and we find that he could not seek his release from confinement in this section 1983 action, see Adams v. Agniel, 405 F.3d 643, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (attack on validity of confinement is properly pursued only through habeas action after exhaustion of state remedies). Further, we agree with the district court that Parkins’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim failed under the relevant factors. See Zubrad v. Hock, 907 F.3d 569, 577 (8th Cir. 2018) (listing relevant factors). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, but we amend the judgment on the Heck-barred claims to be without prejudice, see Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (dismissal of Heck-barred claim should be without prejudice so plaintiff can refile complaint if he succeeds in obtaining relief by way of appropriate state or federal remedies). We deny Parkins’s motion for a stay. ______________________________ -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.
