Lee v. Diddy

Decision Date19 June 1989
Citation56 F.3d 68
PartiesNOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that no party may cite an opinion not intended for publication unless the cases are related by identity between the parties or the causes of action. Vincent Canalli LEE, Appellant, v. Dennis DIDDY; Tom Boyd; Ralph Collin McBee; Detective Romar; C.E. Johnson; Scott Wiegart; Two I.D. Technicians for City of Des Moines; Jamie Bowers; Underwood, Narcotic Agent; Rector, Narcotic Agent; Scott Anderson, Narcotic Agent; Greenfield, Narcotic Agent; Richard Hildreth, Narcotic Agent; Detective on Subpoena
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Canalli Lee appeals the district court's 1 dismissal for failure to state a claim in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. We affirm.

On August 23, 1990, Lee filed a complaint against the cities of Des Moines, West Des Moines, and Clive; the State of Iowa; Polk County; and at least twenty-one individuals employed by the cities, State, and county, who apparently were involved in his arrest, prosecution, and conviction on narcotics offenses. Lee alleged that he was entrapped, slandered, defamed, and falsely arrested; that defendants obstructed justice, fabricated and falsified evidence against him, committed perjury at trial, and denied him equal protection. Lee's claims were based on his allegation that evidence was planted at the scene of his arrest, and that there were flaws in the subsequent chain of custody of the planted evidence. Lee sought to have the charges against him dropped and to recover money damages.

The district court initially stayed the action under Offet v. Solem, 823 F.2d 1256 (8th Cir. 1987), so that Lee could exhaust his state post-conviction remedies. The district court later dismissed Lee's action, concluding that, under Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), no cause of action existed because Lee's conviction had not been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or called into question by issuance of a state or federal writ of habeas corpus.

We review de novo the dismissal for failure to state a claim, viewing the complaint most favorably to Lee. See Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 44-45 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We agree with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT