White v. United States ( 2002 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 19 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JAMES BENJAMIN WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 02-1176
v. (D. C. No. 01-Z-2340)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; (D. Colorado)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE; STATE OF UTAH;
STATE OF COLORADO; BOULDER
COUNTY, CO.; PATRICK D.
BUTLER; and HUGO CASAR,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , HENRY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor appellant’s request for decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is, therefore, ordered submitted
without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
James Benjamin White, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above-listed defendants, seeking
monetary damages. In his original complaint, Mr. White alleged various
constitutional violations, including the violation of his right to be free from
double jeopardy and his right to effective counsel, stemming from his apparent
extradition from the State of Utah to the State of Colorado. Mr. White seeks
immediate release and monetary damages. He also seeks leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“ifp”).
The magistrate judge directed Mr. White to cure various deficiencies in his
complaint, including the omission of the identification of the individuals who
personally participated in the alleged violation of his rights. The district court
noted that Mr. White’s attempt to amend his complaint merely reiterated his
previous claims, and did not illuminate the identity of the individuals involved in
the alleged constitutional violations. The district court noted that, to the extent
Mr. White seeks immediate release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court also concluded that, to
the extent Mr. White seeks damages stemming from probation proceedings, his
request for damages is premature under Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994), because he has not shown that the results of the probation proceedings
have been invalidated.
-2-
We will review de novo the district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Perkins v. Kansas Dep’t of Corr. , 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir.
1999); Whitney v. New Mexico , 113 F.3d 1170, 1173 (10th Cir. 1997) (sua sponte
dismissal). “In reviewing the district court’s dismissal, we accept as true
plaintiff’s allegations, which will be construed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Durre v. Dempsey , 869 F.2d 543, 545 (10th Cir. 1989). Because Mr.
White proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his pleadings. See Haines v.
Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
When a state prisoner seeks damages under § 1983, we “must consider
whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity
of [the prisoner’s] conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be
dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has
already been invalidated.” Heck , 512 U.S. at 487. Moreover, Heck “applies to
proceedings that call into question the fact or duration of parole or probation.”
Crow v. Penry , 102 F.3d 1086, 1087 (10th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). We agree
with the district court’s determination that Mr. White’s allegations “necessarily
imply the invalidity” of his conviction, sentence, or parole determination, Rec.
doc. 18, at 3 (district court order filed Feb. 19, 2002), for which “habeas corpus is
the exclusive remedy.” Heck , 512 U.S. at 481.
-3-
Having reviewed Mr. White’s appellate brief, the district court’s order, and
the appellate record, we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed Mr.
White’s § 1983 action. Thus, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the
district court’s order, we DENY Mr. White’s request for leave to proceed ifp and
DISMISS this appeal.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-4-