James Patrick Hanlon, United States District Judge
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
James Patrick Hanlon, United States District Judge
The Court's screening order at Docket No. 10 dismissed the operative complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff Bradley Harris was given a period of time in which to file a viable amended complaint or otherwise show cause why final judgment should not be entered. See dkt. 10 at 4. The Court also warned Mr. Harris that "[f]ailure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action for the reasons set forth in this Order." Id.
Mr. Harris has filed an amended complaint in response to the Court's Order. Dkt. 11. However, Mr. Harris's response fails to cure the deficiencies identified in the Court's order. Rather, he persists in seeking monetary damages and invalidation of the terms of his sentence and parole, which is barred by the doctrine recognized in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Court cannot discern any material differences between the allegations and relief sought in Mr. Harris' original and amended complaints.
For the same reasons stated in the Court's Screening Order, Mr. Harris' allegations are insufficient to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. See dkt. 10 at 2-4. Therefore, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Childress v. Walker, 787 F.3d 433, 441 (7th Cir. 2015); Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 705 (7th Cir. 2011). Final judgment shall now issue.
SO ORDERED.