Taylor v. Russell

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 6, 2019
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ROY DEAN TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 19-4001
(D.C. No. 2:16-CV-00961-CW)
BRANDON RUSSELL; PAUL SCOTT, (D. Utah)
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before CARSON, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
In October 2014, Defendants Brandon Russell and Paul Scott, officers with the
Heber City Police Department, pulled Plaintiff Roy Taylor’s car over and searched the
vehicle. Defendants found a glass pipe, a box of clear plastic bags, and a digital scale.
Defendants later discovered Plaintiff stashed a bag of methamphetamine in the police
car as they transported him to jail. A jury found Plaintiff guilty of two drug charges,
and Plaintiff went to Utah state prison. In September 2016, Plaintiff filed a pro se
*
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. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
complaint against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District of Utah,
arguing Defendants searched his vehicle in violation of the Fourth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments. In response, the district court entered an order explaining
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8’s requirements and Heck v. Humphrey’s
holding that “a § 1983 action that would impugn the validity of a plaintiff’s underlying
conviction cannot be maintained unless the conviction has been reversed on direct
appeal or impaired by collateral proceedings.” Doc. 7 (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994)). The court further explained, “Heck prevents litigants ‘from using a
§ 1983 action, with its more lenient pleading rules, to challenge their conviction or
sentence without complying with the more stringent exhaustion requirements for
habeas actions.’” Id. at 3 (citing Butler v. Compton, 482 F.3d 1277, 1279 (10th Cir.
2007)). The court then ordered Plaintiff to cure the complaint’s deficiencies within
thirty days.
Within thirty days, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, making the same
allegations that Defendants violated his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights when they pulled him over and searched his vehicle. The magistrate judge issued
a report and recommendation, recommending the complaint be dismissed. The
magistrate judge explained that “Heck v. Humphrey . . . clarified that ‘civil tort actions
are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal
judgments.’” Doc. 22 at 5. The magistrate judge then stated, “Plaintiff’s assertion that
Defendants violated his constitutional rights would cast doubt upon Plaintiff’s
underlying conviction because the evidence discovered in the allegedly
2
unconstitutional search was the sole basis for Plaintiff’s charges and eventual
conviction.” Id. at 6. The district court adopted the report and recommendation, stating
the “action is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), as it challenges the
validity of [Plaintiff’s] conviction while the conviction stands undisrupted by direct
appeal or collateral challenge.” Doc. 26, at 2. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal.
Plaintiff’s appellate brief is silent about the unconstitutional search of his
vehicle. Instead, stating that the appellee is the “State of Utah,” Plaintiff argues (1)
doctors at the prison have been deliberately indifferent to his back pain and (2) the fact
that his back pain has not been well-controlled constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment. Plaintiff made similar arguments in a separate district court case, D.C.
No. 2:15-cv-343. But these arguments were not made in Plaintiff’s amended complaint
in the instant case and, thus, were not ruled on by the district court. “It is the general
rule, of course, that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon
below.” Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976). Further, the named defendants
in this case, Officers Brandon Russell and Paul Scott, have nothing to do with these
medical care allegations. These issues are, therefore, not properly before this Court
and we do not consider them. While Plaintiff does not argue that the district court
erred in determining Heck v. Humphrey barred his unconstitutional search claims, we
note the district court’s analysis on this issue was correct.
3
The district court’s order is AFFIRMED. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis is GRANTED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
4