Carlos Moore v. Jon S. Wheeler ( 2013 )

Case: 12-14151 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14151
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cv-00753-HWM-JBT
CARLOS MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JON S. WHEELER,
Clerk of First District Court of Florida,
THOMAS D. HALL,
Clerk of Supreme Court of Florida,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,
MARK W. MOSELEY,
Cir Judge,
RAY NORMAN,
Clerk of Court 8th Jud. Cir.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 4, 2013)
Case: 12-14151 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Before CARNES, BARKETT, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Moore, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s sua sponte dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), of his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action against the State of Florida, the Florida Attorney General,
and various persons in the Florida court system. Moore, who is serving a life
sentence for a 1973 robbery conviction, alleged in his complaint that his conviction
was improper under Florida law because of a defective charging affidavit, that he
was convicted without sufficient evidence, that the state trial court lacked
jurisdiction over his criminal case, that the length of his sentence was cruel and
unusual punishment, and that he was denied meaningful access to the courts on
appellate review of his criminal case because the trial court denied him access to
the record of his criminal trial and sentencing, and the appellate courts ignored this
issue. The district court concluded that Moore’s complaint failed to state a claim
because Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383
(1994), barred all of his claims. We find no reversible error.
A state prisoner cannot bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for damages if a
judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or
sentence, unless that conviction or sentence has been invalidated already. Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487. The majority of Moore’s claims (all but the access-
2
Case: 12-14151 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 3 of 3
to-courts claim) overtly challenged the validity of his conviction and sentence.
Indeed, Moore requested immediate release from prison in addition to monetary
damages. He did not allege that his conviction had been invalidated already. To
the extent that he sought an order of release, he was directly challenging his
conviction and his claim should have been brought in habeas. To the extent that
he sought damages because he was charged in a defective affidavit, convicted
without sufficient evidence, tried without jurisdiction, and given a sentence that
was cruel and unusual, those claims indirectly challenge his conviction and
sentence by requesting a judgment that necessarily implies the unlawfulness of his
custody. Heck, 512 at 487, 114 S. Ct. at 1272.
Likewise, Moore’s access-to-the-courts claim is barred by Heck. Moore
argues that the state appellate courts would not have affirmed his conviction and
sentence if the trial court had provided them with the record of his trial and
sentencing. Thus, a judgment in Moore’s favor on his access-to-courts claim
would necessarily imply the invalidity of Moore’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.
3