Seville v. Martinez

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-10-2005
Seville v. Martinez
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1057
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Seville v. Martinez" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1222.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1222
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DPS-155 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1057
________________
DOUGLAS SEVILLE,
Appellant
v.
BENJAMIN A. MARTINEZ, Chairman, PA Board of Probation & Parole; KATHLEEN
ZWERZYNA, Secretary, PA Board of Probation & Parole; KENNETH K. KYLER,
Warden, SCI-Huntingdon; LINDA THOMPSON, Parole Agent/Supervisor,
SCI-Huntingdon; ROGER LEIDY, Corrections Counselor, SCI-Huntingdon;
JOSEPH OGERSHOK, Corrections Counselor Unit Manager; HEARING EXAMINER
CHARLES MITCHELL; ROBERT A. GREEVY, Assistant Counsel Parole Board;
BENSALEM POLICE OFFICER
_______________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-00659)
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
_______________________________________
Submitted Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
March 10, 2005
Before: ROTH, BARRY and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: May 10, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Douglas Seville appeals from the District Court’s order granting
Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Seville filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983seeking monetary damages for an alleged unlawful arrest and sentence, as well as an
alleged injury from the filing of a false misconduct report. Because Seville’s appeal is
lacking in arguable legal merit, we will dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
We write only for the parties and, therefore, just briefly recite the facts. In 1973,
Seville was sentenced to serve twenty years imprisonment. He was released on parole
three times, each time violating the conditions of release and forfeiting the credit. While
on his third parole release, Seville absconded. He was arrested for the violation over
eleven years later. Seville claims that his term of imprisonment expired on August 19,
2003, but the Parole Board unlawfully set a new expiration date of August 14, 2010. He
also seeks monetary damages against several corrections staff for filing an alleged
fraudulent misconduct report, and against Police Officer Hart for damage to Seville’s car
and a warrantless arrest. The District Court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss
and Defendant Hart’s motion for change of venue. Seville then brought this appeal.
We note initially that we are without jurisdiction to review the order transferring
venue with respect to Defendant Hart. See In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., 300 F.3d
368, 378 (3d Cir. 2002). An order transferring venue is not a final or appealable order.
Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (establishing federal appellate jurisdiction). Thus, the appeal with
respect to Defendant Hart is dismissed.
We exercise plenary review over Seville’s remaining claims. See Marshall v.
Lauriault, 372 F.3d 175, 179 (3d Cir. 2004). With respect to Seville’s claim seeking
monetary damages for serving an unlawful sentence, he is barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
2
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Seville’s claim, if successful, would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his sentence. See Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542-44 (3d Cir. 2002).
Because he has not proven “that the conviction or sentence has been reversed . . . ,
expunged . . . , declared invalid . . . , or called into question by a federal court’s issuance
of a writ of habeas corpus,” his claim is not cognizable under § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at
486-87. See also Seville v. Kyler, 2004 WL 1615397, slip op. (E.D. Pa. July 15, 2004)
(denying habeas relief on petition alleging the service of an unlawful sentence).
With respect to Seville’s claim that his due process rights were violated, the filing
of a fraudulent misconduct report and related disciplinary sanctions do not without more
violate due process. See Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641, 653-54 (3d Cir. 2002).
However, Seville appears to claim that the false misconduct report caused injury to his
reputation. “[T]he proposition that reputation alone, apart from some more tangible
interests such as employment, is either ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ by itself sufficient to invoke
the . . . Due Process Clause” is simply not sustainable. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701
(1976). Because Seville has not asserted any deprivation of a constitutionally protected
interest, his claim must fail. Additionally, because the complaint is frivolous, the District
Court properly dismissed Seville’s motion for a permanent injunction. Cf. Hankins v.
Temple Univ. (Health Scis. Ctr.), 829 F.2d 437, 438 n.1 (3d Cir. 1987) (stating a request
for a preliminary injunction is moot after a final order).
3
For the foregoing reasons, Seville’s claims are completely lacking in arguable
legal merit and accordingly, we will dismiss.
4