Opinion
NO. 4:01-CV-0841-A
April 23, 2002
ORDER
Came on for consideration the motion of defendant Colin J. Sullivan ("Sullivan") to dismiss. The court, having considered the motion, the response of plaintiffs, Andres Montoya Reyna, Sr., Elida Reyna, Andres Mares Reyna, Jr., and Rebecca Reyna, the record, and applicable authorities, finds that the motion should be granted as set forth herein and that plaintiffs should be required to replead their claims.
As Sullivan notes, the complaint in this action is very vague and conclusory. By their response to the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs make clear that their claims are founded on the contention that search warrants executed by Sullivan and another defendant were unconstitutional "general" warrants that did not specify or describe anything or any person, place, thing that was to be searched and seized. Pls.' Resp. at 3. A complete copy of one of the warrants is attached to the response. The affidavit supporting the other warrant is also attached. The warrant makes clear that the supporting affidavit is attached to it and made part of it for all purposes and that officers are "commanded to enter the suspected place described in said Affidavit and to there search for the personal property described in said Affidavit and to seize same and to arrest and bring before [the Magistrate Judge] each suspected party named in the Affidavit." Attach. J. to Pls.' Resp. The attached affidavit very specifically describes the house to be searched, the items to be seized, and the person to be arrested. As a matter of law, the search warrants are valid. Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 480 (1976) . Thus, any claims based on alleged invalidity of the warrants are without merit.
Plaintiffs admit, in their response to the motion to dismiss, that a judgment in favor of plaintiff Andres Mares Reyna, Jr., would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. Accordingly, he may not proceed with his claims in this action. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). The fact that he has not ever presented or raised a Fourth Amendment claim, Pls.' Resp. at 2, does not absolve him of the Heck bar.
Giving plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt, it appears that they may be complaining about execution of the search warrants separate and apart from the validity of the warrants themselves. So that all allegations will be in one document, the court will require plaintiffs to replead.
The court ORDERS that:
(1) Sullivan's motion to dismiss be, and is hereby, granted in part and plaintiffs' claims against Sullivan based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the search warrants in issue be, and are hereby, dismissed;
(2) all claims of plaintiff Andres Mares Reyna, Jr., in the above-captioned action be, and are hereby, dismissed pursuant to Heck Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); and
(3) by 4:30 p.m. on May 10, 2002, plaintiffs file an amended complaint taking into account the court's rulings in this order and stating specifically their remaining claims against defendants Sullivan, Richard A. Medema, Senior Attorney, and Mia Moore, DEA Agent, including detailed facts to support the contention that claims of qualified immunity by these defendants cannot be sustained.
The court further ORDERS that failure to comply with this order in any respect may result in the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims without further notice.
The court determines that there is no just reason for delay in, and hereby directs, entry of final judgment as to the claims disposed of by this order.