Dytaniel L. McBride v. John R. Ya’cup

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 9, 2025*
Decided October 14, 2025
Before
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2410
DYTANIEL L. MCBRIDE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN R. YA’CUP, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 24-cv-1072-MMM
Sara Darrow,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Dytaniel McBride, who was convicted of drug charges, appeals the dismissal of
his civil complaint asserting constitutional claims in connection with his arrest. The
district court dismissed McBride’s action as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
486–87 (1994). We affirm.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is
frivolous. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-2410 Page 2
We accept as true the facts alleged in McBride’s complaint and draw all
reasonable inferences in his favor. Courtney v. Butler, 66 F.4th 1043, 1046 (7th Cir. 2023).
McBride is serving a 30-year sentence for money laundering and drug offenses. His
convictions stemmed from evidence that he owned and operated a clothing store that
served as a front for drug dealing—bank deposits for the store showed receipts of cash
deposits that well exceeded the store’s modest revenues. See United States v. McBride,
724 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2013). McBride alleges that his convictions were secured through a
broad conspiracy in which a swath of defendants—federal and local law enforcement
officials, prosecutors, judges, his defense attorney, and the bank that held his business
account—fabricated a bank account in his business’s name, forged checks, and made
deposits into his real business account. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2)–(3), 1986; 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331; Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). The district court dismissed McBride’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
concluding that his claims were barred by Heck because a judgment in his favor would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his convictions.†
On appeal, McBride restates his legal theories without contesting Heck’s
applicability to this case. But the district court rightly dismissed his suit as Heck-barred.
Under Heck, any civil action, regardless of the relief sought, is barred if it necessarily
implies the invalidity of a criminal conviction that has not been satisfied by other means
or proceedings. 512 U.S. at 486–87; Morgan v. Schott, 914 F.3d 1115, 1120 (7th Cir. 2019);
see Hill v. Murphy, 785 F.3d 242, 244 (7th Cir. 2015) (applying Heck to Bivens actions);
Amaker v. Weiner, 179 F.3d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1999) (applying Heck to §§ 1985 and 1986
claims). McBride’s claims—that the defendants conspired to fabricate evidence,
fraudulently obtained search warrants, and seized his assets—challenge the validity of
his convictions, and he has not shown that his convictions have been invalidated.
We close with the matter of sanctions. In 2021, after we deemed frivolous
McBride’s repeated attempts to collaterally attack his convictions, we sanctioned him by
† McBride also sought immediate release from custody. But the district court
lacked jurisdiction to consider this request. McBride, who initiated his first 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 proceeding in 2015 and has since filed eight unsuccessful petitions for a
certificate of appealability, may not use a civil-rights suit to obtain relief from ongoing
custody and evade the limitations on successive motions under § 2255. Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); United States v. Evans, 224 F.3d 670, 674-75 (7th Cir.
2000).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-2410 Page 3
fining him $500 and barring him from making further collateral attacks on his
convictions. McBride v. United States, No. 21-1630 (Order of Aug. 26, 2021); see Alexander
v. United States, 121 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 1997). Moreover, in this appeal, in our order
denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we warned McBride that further attempts
to challenge his criminal convictions or pursue frivolous litigation may result in
additional sanctions, including a broader filing bar. McBride v. Ya’Cup, No. 24-2410
(Order of Jan. 21, 2025). He nonetheless proceeded with this appeal, repeating the same
challenge to his convictions that resulted in the Alexander bar. Because this appeal
frivolously attempts to attack his convictions, we sanction McBride with a $1,000 fine.
Unless and until McBride pays all outstanding filing fees and sanctions, the
clerks of all federal courts in this circuit are directed to return unfiled any papers
submitted either directly or indirectly by him or on his behalf. See In re City of Chicago,
500 F.3d 582, 585–86 (7th Cir. 2007); Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186
(7th Cir. 1995). This order will be lifted immediately once McBride makes full payment.
See In re City of Chicago, 500 F.3d at 585–86. If McBride, despite his best efforts, is unable
to pay in full all outstanding sanctions and fees, no earlier than two years from the date
of this order, he may submit to this court a motion to modify or rescind this order that
explains in detail what efforts he has made to pay the amounts he owes. See id.; Mack,
45 F.3d at 186.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --