ical exam proved the victim's reported injuries were false and that his consent to search and subsequent confession were coerced); In re John Alan Conroy , No. 16-10027 (5th Cir. Mar. 16, 2016, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication) (denying second petition for permission to file subsequent section 2255 petition); Conroy v. United States , No. 16-CV-00750-SMY, 2016 WL 6610429 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 9, 2016) (not designated for publication) (dismissing Eighth Amendment suit based on harassment by fellow inmate who had accessed publicly available records regarding Conroy's conviction, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Conroy v. Henry , No. 16-cv-750-SMY, 2016 WL 7337979, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 19, 2016) (not designated for publication) (denying motion to proceed with harassment suit anonymously or to seal entire case record; further noting that amended complaint sought "to relitigate Plaintiff's previous habeas petitions, as well as his § 1983 action"); Conroy v. Henry , No. 16-cv-750-JPG, 2017 WL 1346636 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 12, 2017) (not designated for publication) (dismissing claim against Big Spring Police Department, individual BSPD detective, individual Texas Ranger, Texas Department of Public Safety, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), individual ICE officer, public defender, U.S. Attorney, probation officer, clerk of court, and presiding judge, for allegations including failure to produce the July 3, 2010 interrogation recording); In re John Alan Conroy , No. 17-10402 (5th Cir. May 31, 2017, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication) (denying third petition for permission to file subsequent section 2255 petition); Conroy v. True , No. 3:17-cv-00671-DRH, 2017 WL 3422055 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2017) (not designated for publication) (dismissing with prejudice Conroy's second petition for writ of habeas corpus based on alleged failure to produce interrogation video, for failure to state a claim that qualified for habeas relief); Conroy v. Harris , No. 07-18-00381-CV, 2019 WL 1908130 (Tex. App.—Amar
However, “§ 1915(g) is inapplicable when an action is removed from state court.”See Conroy v. Rider, 1:13-CV-149-C, 2013 WL 12092200, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2013); Conroy v. Rider, 575 Fed.Appx. 509, 510 (5th Cir. 2014); Conroy v. Henry, 16-CV-750-JPG, 2017 WL 1346636, at *4, *7 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 12, 2017). Mitchell v. Goings, 31 F.4th 169,173 (5th Cir. 2022) (but noting that Rule 11 provides courts with a means of penalizing the pursuit of frivolous suits that are removed to federal court).
"A complaint that is barred by Heck is considered legally frivolous and counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)." Conroy v. Henry, No. 16-CV-750-JPG, 2017 WL 1346636, at *7 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 12, 2017) (citing Moore v. Pemberton, 110 F.3d 22, 24 (7th Cir. 1997)); Woods v. McHale, No. 14 CV 5689, 2014 WL 4803107, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2014) (collecting cases holding that § 1983 suits barred by Heck are legally frivolous and thus warrant strikes under § 1915(g)); see also Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 704 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted) ("A dismissal is a dismissal, and provided that it is on one of the grounds specified in section 1915(g) it counts as a strike, whether or not it's with prejudice.").
Conroy was subsequently arrested several weeks later pursuant to a federal arrest warrant "based on evidence discovered by the state officials in the search of [his] house and travel trailer." Conroy v. Henry, No. 16-CV-750-JPG, 2017 WL 1346636, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 12, 2017). He pleaded guilty to production of child pornography and receiving a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, see id. (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a), 2252(a)(2)), and he was sentenced to 405 months' imprisonment.