THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY LAWSON, : Plaintiff V. : 3:20-CV-2428 : (JUDGE MARIANI) PIZZA HUT, et al., : Defendants : v4 ORDER AND NOW, THIS a Day OF MAY, 2021, upon review of Magistrate Judge Saporito’s Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 9) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 9) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth.' 2. Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(i) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this ac Py MXM Robert 2. Marian, United States District Judge 1 The R&R (Doc. 9), issued on January 6, 2021, relied in part on the Supreme Court's favorable termination rule set forth in Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994) in determining that this action must be dismissed. At the time the R&R was issued, the Magistrate Judge properly noted that Lawson had been arraigned and was awaiting trial on the charges against him (see id. at 2-3). However, on April 9, 2021, Lawson pleaded guilty to Simple Assault and the other charges against him were nolle prossed. See Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lawson, Docket No. CP-35-CR-0001065-2020 (Lackawanna Cty. (Pa.) (C.C.P.). The applicability of Heck to a pre-trial detainee has been questioned by courts, see e.g. Dique v. N.J. State Police,

(3d Cir. 2010) (explaining that the Supreme Court in Wallace v. Kato,

(2007) “clarified that the Heck bar is applicable only when, at the time the § 1983 suit would normally accrue, there is an existing criminal conviction.”)(emphasis in original)). However, in light of Lawson's guilty plea in April, 2021, it is clear that the Heck bar now applies in this action as judgment in favor of Lawson in the present civil action would imply the invalidity of Lawson’s state court criminal conviction.