Mary Louise Richardson Dozier v. Cherlene Vickers

Case: 12-14844 Date Filed: 08/20/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14844
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-00518-MEF-WC
MARY LOUISE RICHARDSON DOZIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHERLENE VICKERS,
Clerk,
DOUGLAS VALESKA,
Prosecutor,
LAWTON ARMSTRONG,
MARK JONES,
Police,
STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(August 20, 2013)
Case: 12-14844 Date Filed: 08/20/2013 Page: 2 of 5
Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mary Dozier was arrested in Alabama on July 16, 1987, for possession of
cocaine and was sentenced to a term of probation on April 29, 1988. While on
probation, she was arrested for selling crack cocaine to an undercover officer, and
her probation was revoked on October 28, 1988. She was sentenced to a two-year
term of imprisonment. After her release, she was convicted on two counts of
unlawful distribution of a controlled substance and was sentenced as a habitual
offender to a sixty-year prison term in November 1992.
On June 18, 2012, Dozier, proceeding pro-se, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983action for damages. She alleged that she was arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced
for those controlled substance offenses in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The
defendants consist of the police officers who arrested her, the attorney who
prosecuted her, and the clerk of the court. The District Court sua sponte dismissed
her complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). She now appeals.
On appeal, Dozier raises two issues. First, she argues that her claim is not
barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383(1994), because she claims her convictions were invalidated when the Alabama
2
Case: 12-14844 Date Filed: 08/20/2013 Page: 3 of 5
state court remitted in 2008 the fines imposed as part of the sentence she received.
Second, she argues that her claim is not barred by the statute of limitations because
she claims her action should have been measured against Alabama’s six-year
statute of limitations for false imprisonment.
Upon a de novo review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs,
we affirm.
I.
A court “shall dismiss” a case filed in forma pauperis if the court determines
that the complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). However, “[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less
stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be
liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th
Cir. 1998). We review de novo the district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure
to state a claim, viewing the allegations in the complaint as true. Hughes v. Lott,
350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 2003).
Under Heck v. Humphrey, if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on a § 1983
complaint for money damages “would necessarily imply the invalidity of [the]
conviction or sentence,” the district court must dismiss the complaint unless the
plaintiff can “demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been
invalidated” by “prov[ing] that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on
3
Case: 12-14844 Date Filed: 08/20/2013 Page: 4 of 5
direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S. Ct. at 2372.
If successful, Dozier’s claim for damages under § 1983 “would necessarily
imply the invalidity of [her] conviction.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, 114 S. Ct. at
2372. Thus, to proceed on her claim, Dozier must first show that her conviction
has been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or called into question by issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus. Id. She has failed to do so.
Though Dozier cites one case, Chisholm v. State, 42 Ala. 527, 528 (1868), in
which the Alabama Supreme Court found that remittance of a fine pursuant to the
Governor’s pardon power under the Alabama Constitution “destroyed the vitality
of the judgment, except as to costs,” the more recent cases and statutory law of
Alabama strongly suggest that the remittance of fines does not in all circumstances
constitute such an invalidation. In Thomas v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals
of Alabama considered appellant’s argument that remittance of the costs and fine
associated with a menacing conviction invalidated that conviction. Thomas v.
State, 666 So. 2d 849, 853 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993), rev’d on other grounds sub
nom. Ex parte Thomas, 666 So. 2d 855 (Ala. 1995). It held that appellant still had
a valid conviction for menacing, because “[r]egardless of whether the costs and
fine were remitted in the misdemeanor conviction, the docket sheet for that offense
4
Case: 12-14844 Date Filed: 08/20/2013 Page: 5 of 5
clearly shows that the district court adjudged the appellant guilty [of] menacing.”
Id. The Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, moreover, provide for an inquiry
into a defendant’s inability to pay a fine due to indigency and give Alabama courts
the option of “releas[ing] the defendant from obligation to pay the fine.” Ala. R.
Crim. P. 26.11(g) and (h)(5).
Dozier’s claim that her conviction was invalidated in 2008 when her fines
were remitted is without merit. Based on the information in the Case Action
Summary that Dozier attached to her complaint, her fines were remitted not
because her conviction was invalid, but because indigency and substantial hardship
rendered her incapable of paying them. As in Thomas, “[r]egardless of whether
the costs and fine were remitted” in her conviction, she was still judged guilty and
convicted for the offenses in question. Thomas, 666 So. 2d at 853. Thus, because
she has failed to show that her conviction was invalidated, we conclude that the
district court did not err in finding her claim barred by Heck, and affirm.
II.
Because Dozier’s complaint is barred by Heck, we need not reach the statute
of limitations issue.
AFFIRMED.
5