(dismissing the plaintiff's due process claims without prejudice but without leave to amend and stating that the plaintiff may bring a new action if he can establish that his parole revocation determination or subsequent sentence have been invalidated). “[T]he Heck rule bars [a] plaintiff's claims until the underlying conviction is invalidated, and thus providing the plaintiff with an opportunity to amend the complaint is futile until such time that the state court conviction is reversed, invalidated by a federal writ of habeas corpus, or otherwise expunged or declared invalid.” Cruz v. Reilly, 08-CV-1245, 2009 WL 2567990, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2009).
(“Where the plaintiffs underlying conviction has not been so invalidated, courts routinely dismiss Section 1983 claims for, inter alia, malicious prosecution, conspiracy and deprivation of the right to a fair trial pursuant to Heck”); Cruz v. Reilly, 08-CV-1245 (JFB)(AKT), 2009 WL 2567990, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18,2009) (“pursuant to Heck, courts routinely dismiss claims of, inter alia, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and deprivation of the right to a fair trial brought under Section 1983 when such claims bear on the validity of an underlying conviction”)
See also Cruz v. Reilly, 08-CV-1245, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73065 (E.D.N.Y Aug. 18, 2009) (dismissing plaintiffs Section 1983 conspiracy claims "under the rule announced in Heck even if they were brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and/or 1986")
See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). “[T]he Heck rule bars [a] plaintiff's claims until the underlying conviction is invalidated, and thus providing the plaintiff with an opportunity to amend the complaint is futile until such time that the state court conviction is reversed, invalidated by a federal writ of habeas corpus, or otherwise expunged or declared invalid.” Cruz v. Reilly, No. 08-CV-1245 JFB AKT, 2009 WL 2567990, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2009). Here, “[b]ecause the defects in Plaintiff's complaint [arising from the Heck bar] cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend his [amended] complaint.”
Because that conviction remains valid, the claim is barred by Heck. See Perez v. Cuomo, No. 09-CV-1109(SLT), 2009 WL 1046137, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2009) (“Since plaintiffs conviction remains valid, plaintiffs claim for violation of his right to a fair trial is not cognizable under § 1983”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Cruz v. Reilly, No. 08-CV-1245 JFB AKT, 2009 WL 2567990, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2009) (“pursuant to Heck, courts routinely dismiss claims of.. . deprivation of the right to a fair trial brought under Section 1983 when such claims bear on the validity of an underlying conviction or sentence”). Plaintiffs conspiracy claims, to the extent based on the June Indictment, are likewise barred by Heck.
The Court takes judicial notice of the state court documentation and will therefore consider the document for purposes of this report and recommendation. See O'Neal v. East Hampton Town, CV 16-0579 (JFB) (GRB), 2017 WL 4174788, at *1 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2017) (citing Nicaisse v. Mel S. Harris & Assocs., LLC, No. 14-cv-1569 (ADS)(AYS), 2015 WL 5561296, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 19, 2015) (taking judicial notice of the public records of the New York State Unified Court System available on its website); Cruz v. Reilly, No. 08-CV-1245 (JFB)(AKT), 2009 WL 2567990, at *1 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2009) (same); see also Bond, 2015 WL 5719706, at *2 (holding that courts may take judicial notice of public records such as arrest reports and indictments).
Further, conspiracy claims are routinely dismissed under Heck when such claims bear on the validity of the underlying conviction or sentence. Cruz v. Reilly, No. 08-CV-1245 (JFB)(AKT), 2009 WL 2567990, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2009) (collecting cases); see also Amaker v. Weiner, 179 F.3d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that "Heck . . . applies with respect not only to [the] plaintiff's § 1983 claim but also to his §§ 1981, 1985(3) and 1986 claims" because the existence of a conspiracy would necessarily question the validity of plaintiff's conviction). Here, excluding the excessive force claim, Plaintiff's §§ 1983 and 1985(3) claims fall squarely within the ambit of Heck because a decision in his favor would necessarily call into question the validity of his conviction or sentence.
With respect to the Hempstead Defendants' submission of trial and plea transcript pages, judicial notice may be taken of the state court documentation submitted by defendants. See, e.g., Nicaisse v. Mel S. Harris & Assocs., LLC, No. 14-CV-1569 (ADS)(AYS), 2015 WL 5561296, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2015) (taking judicial notice of the public records of the New York State Unified Court System available on its website); Cruz v. Reilly, No. 08-CV-1245 (JFB)(AKT), 2009 WL 2567990, at *1, n.1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2009) (same). Indeed, judicial notice may be taken of public records, including "arraignments, arrest reports, criminal complaints and indictments, and certificates of disposition."
The Court finds that amendment would be futile under the circumstances. See Webster , 271 F.Supp.3d at 471 (denying pro se plaintiff leave to amend a section 1983 claim for futility because of failure to meet the Heck requirements); Cruz v. Reilly , No. 08-CV-1245, 2009 WL 2567990, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2009) ; ("[T]he Heck rule bars [a] plaintiff's claims until the underlying conviction is invalidated, and thus providing the plaintiff with an opportunity to amend the complaint is futile until such time that the state court conviction is reversed, invalidated by a federal writ of habeas corpus, or otherwise expunged or declared invalid.").III. Conclusion
"[T]he Heck rule bars [a] plaintiff's claims until the underlying conviction is invalidated, and thus providing the plaintiff with an opportunity to amend the complaint is futile until such time that the state court conviction is reversed, invalidated by a federal writ of habeas corpus, or otherwise expunged or declared invalid." Cruz v. Reilly , No. 08-CV-1245 JFB AKT, 2009 WL 2567990, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2009) ; Smythe v. Nolley , No. 95-CV-208S, 1997 WL 714238, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 1997) ("[L]eave to replead has already been granted in this case, and further leave to replead a claim under § 1983 would be futile because [the] plaintiff cannot demonstrate that his state court conviction has been independently invalidated, as Heck v. Humphrey requires him to do.").Therefore, because even the most liberal reading of Plaintiff's allegations does not suggest that a valid claim could be stated at this time, in view of the requirements of Heck , leave to amend will not be granted as it would be futile at this time.