Circuit Judges. WILLIAM ANTHONY EVANS , Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLENN DOWD, Nassau County Police Officer # Defendant-Appellee. Evans v. Dowd Plaintiff-Appellant William Anthony Evans appeals, (2nd Cir. 2005)

Text

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of March, Two Thousand Two.

PRESENT: HONORABLE JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN HONORABLE FRED I. PARKER HONORABLE ROSEMARY S. POOLER Circuit Judges.

WILLIAM ANTHONY EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 01-7097

GLENN DOWD, Nassau County Police Officer #123

Defendant-Appellee.

APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: William Anthony Evans, Pro Se Dannemora, NY APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: Gerald R. Podlesak County Attorney's Office Nassau County Mineola, NY Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Leonard D. Wexler, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the decision of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Evans v. Dowd Docket No. 01-7097

Plaintiff-Appellant William Anthony Evans ("Evans") appeals from the judgment of the district court entered January 16, 2001

granting the motion for summary judgment of Defendant-Appellee Glenn Dowd, a Nassau County Police Officer. Evans v. Dowd, No.

CV 98-1261, slip op. at 7 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2001).

The district court dismissed Evans' 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) because, if Evans were to prevail, the validity of Evans' criminal conviction would be undermined. Evans concedes that a portion of his claim is barred by Heck, but contends that a portion of his claim is still viable against those defendants who acted, post-conviction, to improperly deny his New York Freedom of Information Law requests. To the extent that his § 1983 claim is not barred by Heck, we nonetheless affirm the district court because Evans can point to no constitutional right that was violated by the defendant's failure to fulfill his document request.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT, Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk By:

Lucille Carr, Operations Manager

---