Collins v. State of Oklahoma ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
October 17, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
MARK ROY COLLINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 06-6106
STATE OF OKLAHOMA; WILLIAM C. (D.C. No. CIV-05-0585-W)
RILEY, Assistant District Attorney; (W. D. Oklahoma)
DARRELL DAWKINS, Detective; CITY
OF LAWTON, OKLAHOMA,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is, therefore,
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Mark Roy Collins, an Oklahoma prisoner appearing pro se, appeals from the
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We exercise jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
I.
In 1996, Collins was charged by information in the District Court of Comanche
County, Oklahoma, with sexual battery and other related crimes. Collins was
subsequently convicted of the charged crimes and sentenced to twenty-five years’
imprisonment. Collins unsuccessfully challenged his convictions on direct appeal, in a
state post-conviction proceeding, and in a federal habeas proceeding.
On March 24, 2005, Collins filed a pro se § 1983 complaint against the State of
Oklahoma, William Riley, an assistant district attorney in Lawton County, Oklahoma,
and Darrel Dawkins, a detective from Lawton County. Collins’ complaint attacked the
validity of his state convictions, alleging, in part, that the criminal information filed
against him was defective, that Riley, who prosecuted the case, engaged in “deceptive
tactics,” and that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective. Further, the complaint
specifically requested that his state convictions be “‘overturned’ and then ‘vacated.’”
ROA, Doc. 1 at 5.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds. On January 31,
2006, the magistrate judge assigned to the case issued a report and recommendation
recommending that the district court dismiss the action. Although the clerk’s office
mailed Collins a copy of the report and recommendation, the record on appeal indicates
that Collins refused delivery of it. On February 24, 2006, the district court, having
-2-
received no objections from Collins to the report and recommendation, adopted it in full
and dismissed without prejudice all of the claims asserted in Collins’ complaint.
II.
Applying a de novo standard of review, Perkins v. Kansas Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d
803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999), we have examined the record on appeal and agree with the
district court that Collin’s § 1983 suit is subject to dismissal on a number of grounds.
Most notably, we agree that a judgment in Collin’s favor on his § 1983 suit “would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his [state] conviction[s] [and] sentence . . . .” Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Thus, Supreme Court precedent requires that his
complaint be dismissed until he “can demonstrate that the conviction[s] or sentence
ha[ve] already been invalidated.” Id. (applying rule in § 1983 suit seeking damages);
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (applying rule in § 1983 suit seeking
declaratory relief).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Collins’ motion to pay the
filing fee in partial payments is DENIED, and he is ordered to make immediate payment
of the unpaid balance due.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-3-