Micah Matthews v. Linda Koechle ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 19-1110
    ___________________________
    Micah Sherif Matthews
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Linda Koechle; Patti Wachtendorf, Warden; Randy Van Wye, Investigator; Berl
    Wilcox, Unit Manager; Paul Gager, Administrative Judge; Tom Melvin Jones, Jr.
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
    Heather Hawk; Phil Evans; Mark Shanstrom, Captain
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
    ____________
    Submitted: December 18, 2019
    Filed: December 23, 2019
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Micah Sherif Matthews challenges the district
    court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment.
    Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that defendants were entitled to
    summary judgment. See Moore v. Plaster, 
    266 F.3d 928
    , 931 (8th Cir. 2001)
    (standard of review). Specifically, we agree that Matthews’s claim for damages
    arising from an alleged search was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
    (1994); given that, in disciplinary proceedings, his allegations regarding the search
    were found to be false, and he was sanctioned with the loss of earned time. See
    Sheldon v. Hundley, 
    83 F.3d 231
    , 233 (8th Cir. 1996) (Heck applies to disciplinary
    proceedings that affect length of prisoner’s sentence). Although Matthews is serving
    a sentence of life without parole, we note that his sentence could be commuted to a
    term of years. See Iowa Code § 902.2 (life-without-parole sentence may be
    commuted by governor to term of years); cf. Blair-Bey v. Nix, 
    919 F.2d 1338
    , 1339
    (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (federal court in § 1983 action should not deprive state
    court of opportunity to address claim challenging loss of good-time credits where
    there is possibility of commutation of life sentence to term of years).
    We further conclude that summary judgment was proper as to Matthews’s
    claim of retaliation because the disciplinary sanction was supported by some evidence
    that he made false statements about the search. See Hartsfield v. Nichols, 
    511 F.3d 826
    , 829-30 (8th Cir. 2008) (inmate may maintain cause of action for retaliatory
    discipline under § 1983; retaliation claim fails if conduct violations were issued for
    actual violation of prison rule; prison disciplinary violations are valid when they are
    supported by some evidence).
    1
    The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
    the Southern District of Iowa.
    -2-
    Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, but we modify the judgment on the
    Heck-barred claim to be without prejudice. See 8th Cir. R. 47B; Schafer v. Moore,
    
    46 F.3d 43
    , 45 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (dismissal of Heck-barred claims should
    be without prejudice).
    ______________________________
    -3-