Filed: Aug. 12, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8102 DAVE ANDRAE TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF FARMVILLE; FARMVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; FARMVILLE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; STATE OF VIRGINIA; PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY; OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00963-AJT-IDD) Submitted: July 8, 2010 Decided: August
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8102 DAVE ANDRAE TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF FARMVILLE; FARMVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; FARMVILLE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; STATE OF VIRGINIA; PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY; OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00963-AJT-IDD) Submitted: July 8, 2010 Decided: August ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8102
DAVE ANDRAE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF FARMVILLE; FARMVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; FARMVILLE
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; STATE OF VIRGINIA; PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY;
OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:09-cv-00963-AJT-IDD)
Submitted: July 8, 2010 Decided: August 12, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dave Andrae Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dave Andrae Taylor, a federal prisoner, filed a
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) seeking damages on
the ground that Defendants failed to advise him at the time of
his arrest in February 1999 of his rights under Article 36 of
the Vienna Convention. The district court dismissed the action
without prejudice, concluding that Taylor’s action was barred by
the holding in Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994). We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s order and conclude
that pursuant to Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon,
548 U.S. 331 (2006),
the action was not barred by the holding in Heck. Accordingly,
we vacate the district court’s order dismissing Taylor’s action
without prejudice and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion. We deny Taylor’s motion for appointment of
counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2