Larry Gene Harless, Jr. v. Michelle Boyd and Johnny Rosenbaum

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia addressed a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against a prosecutor and defense counsel arising from a guilty plea and alleged Fourth Amendment waiver. The court denied as moot the first motion to amend, denied the second motion to amend as futile, granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, and dismissed the claims in their entirety. The court concluded that the claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey and the statute of limitations, and also failed to state cognizable federal or state-law claims.

Holdings

1. A proposed § 1983 claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey when success on the claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of the plaintiff's outstanding conviction or sentence and the conviction has not been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or invalidated through habeas relief.
2. A § 1983 claim filed in Virginia is subject to Virginia's two-year statute of limitations for general personal-injury claims and accrues when the plaintiff possesses sufficient facts about the harm that reasonable inquiry will reveal the cause of action.
3. A plaintiff must plead a violation of a constitutional or federal right and that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law; conclusory allegations of duress, deception, or constitutional violations do not satisfy Rule 12(b)(6).
4. Harless failed to state potential Virginia claims for legal malpractice, fraud, or civil conspiracy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether leave to file Harless's second proposed amended complaint should be denied as futile because the proposed § 1983 claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, untimely, or failed to state a cognizable claim.
2. Whether Harless's operative complaint stated claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged coercion or deception in connection with his plea agreement and Fourth Amendment waiver.
3. Whether Harless adequately pleaded potential state-law claims for legal malpractice, fraud, and civil conspiracy.

Disposition

dismissed