56 F.3d 68 (8th Cir. 1995), 94-3815, Lee v. Diddy
|Citation:||56 F.3d 68|
|Party Name:||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|
|Case Date:||May 12, 1995|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA8 Rule 28A, FI CTA8 IOP and FI CTA8 APP. I regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Submitted: May 9, 1995
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Vincent Canalli Lee appeals the district court's 1 dismissal for failure to state a claim in his 42 U.S.C. § 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...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP