Jeffries v. Guilfoyle , 105 F. App'x 227 ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 2 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MICHAEL JEFFRIES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 03-6336
(D. Ct. No. 03-CV-615-L)
MELINDA GUILFOYLE; REGINALD (W.D. Okla.)
HINES; GLOYD L. MCCOY; CARLA
NELSON, in their individual and
official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , Chief Circuit Judge, BRISCOE , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel
has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance 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.
Plaintiff-Appellant Micheal Jeffries, a state prisoner appearing pro se ,
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
*
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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.
brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants, by preventing
his presentation of witnesses and other evidence, denied him his constitutional
right to due process during a prison disciplinary hearing where he was found
guilty of possessing marijuana. Upon a report and recommendation by the
magistrate judge, the District Court found that the official capacity claims against
the Defendants should be dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment, and that the
remaining claims should be dismissed without prejudice under Heck v. Humphrey ,
512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641 (1997). We agree.
It is clear that the Eleventh Amendment bars this action against the
Defendants in their official capacities. Indeed, Mr. Jeffries conceded this point
below. See Jeffries v. Guilfoyle , CIV-03-615-L, Report and Recommendation at 3
n. 1 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 24, 2003). It is also clear that since 1997 an inmate may
not bring a challenge to the validity of procedures used to deprive him of good-
time credits unless the prisoner can demonstrate the sanction has previously been
invalidated. Edwards , 520 U.S. at 643 (“a state prisoner’s claim for damages is
not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff
would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, unless the
prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously been
invalidated”) (quotation omitted).
Under the circumstances of this case, a judgment in favor of Mr. Jeffries
-2-
would necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed by the January
2003 disciplinary action. Further, Mr. Jeffries fails to show that the disciplinary
proceeding has been reversed, expunged, or declared invalid. Thus, he fails to
state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons cited in the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and in the order of the District
Court, the order dismissing the official capacity claims under the Eleventh
Amendment and dismissing without prejudice the remaining claims is
AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha
Chief Circuit Judge
-3-