Stewart v. LeMaster ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    MAY 19 2005
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    JULIUS LESLIE STEWART,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    No. 04-2174
    TIM LEMASTER, Warden, New
    (District of New Mexico)
    Mexico State Penitentiary; CHET
    (D.C. No. CIV-04-507-MCA/WDS)
    EDWARDS, Unit Manager,
    Penitentiary of New Mexico; CARLOS
    VALDEZ, Unit Manager, Penitentiary
    of New Mexico,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this court has
    determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
    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.
    Appellant Julius Stewart, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a
    complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that Defendants violated his
    constitutional right to due process when they implemented disciplinary sanctions
    resulting in the termination of his ability to earn good time credits. Stewart
    sought both the restoration of good time credits and monetary damages. The
    district court dismissed Stewart’s complaint without prejudice, concluding that an
    action seeking the restoration of good time credits must be brought under the
    habeas corpus statutes with exhaustion of state remedies required. See United
    States v. Furman, 
    112 F.3d 435
    , 438 (10th Cir. 1997). The court further
    concluded that Stewart’s claims for damages were barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
    
    512 U.S. 477
    (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 
    520 U.S. 641
    , 648 (1997).
    Stewart then filed the instant appeal together with a request to proceed in
    forma pauperis. In his appellate brief, Stewart does not address the grounds upon
    which the district court dismissed his complaint but, instead, presents arguments
    challenging his underlying conviction and sentence. Having reviewed the record,
    Stewart’s appellate brief, and the applicable law, we conclude that the dismissal
    of Stewart’s § 1983 complaint was proper. Accordingly, the district court’s order
    dismissing Stewart’s complaint without prejudice is   affirmed for substantially
    -2-
    the reasons stated by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order
    dated June 30, 2004. Stewart’s       motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
    Stewart is reminded that he remains obligated to continue making partial
    payments until his appellate filing fee is paid in full.   See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    Michael R. Murphy
    Circuit Judge
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-2174

Judges: Briscoe, Lucero, Murphy

Filed Date: 5/19/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024