United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
P. ELLISON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauper is, filed this section 1983 lawsuit against six
prison officers. He seeks declaratory, injunctive, and
monetary relief for alleged violations of his constitutional
rights regarding a disciplinary conviction.
screened the complaint pursuant to sections 1915 and 1915A,
the Court DISMISSES this lawsuit for the
reasons shown below.
BACKGROUND AND CLAIMS
challenges a prison disciplinary conviction he received at
the Wynne Unit. He states that the disciplinary charges were
initially dismissed on a technicality, but were re-filed the
next day. Plaintiff was found guilty and punished with a
reduction in line class and loss of privileges. His
administrative appeals were denied.
claims that the disciplinary conviction violated his
constitutional rights and was retaliatory. He seeks a
declaratory judgment and monetary damages. He further seeks
permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from
undertaking "illegal practices and proceedings,
plaintiff is a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or
employee of a governmental entity, his complaint is subject
to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir.
1998) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding in forma
pauperis, his complaint is also subject to screening
under section 1915(e)(2). Both sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915A(b) provide for sua sponte dismissal of the
complaint, or any portion thereof, if the Court finds that it
is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the Court may dismiss an in
forma pauperis complaint as frivolous when it lacks an
arguable basis in law or fact. Hutchins v.
McDaniels, 512 F.3d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 2007). A
complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory. Davis v. Scott,
157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998).
seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and monetary
damages for the allegedly unlawful disciplinary conviction
and attendant violations of his constitutional rights.
InHeckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme
Court held that a claim that, in effect, attacks the
constitutionality of a conviction or imprisonment is not
cognizable under section 1983 and does not accrue until that
conviction or sentence has been "reversed on 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." Id., at 486-87. The bar
applies whether the relief sought is compensatory,
declaratory, or injunctive in nature. Reger v.
Walker, 312 Fed.Appx. 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2009).
Supreme Court has extended Heck to prison
disciplinary proceedings, concluding that claims for
declaratory or injunctive relief or monetary damages that
necessarily imply the invalidity of a disciplinary punishment
are not cognizable in a section 1983 proceeding. Edwards
v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48 (1997). Plaintiffs
allegations here as to the disciplinary proceedings,
conviction, and related actions of the officers involved in
the proceedings, if successful, would "necessarily imply
the invalidity of the punishment imposed."
Edwards, 520 U.S. at 648. Thus, his claims are not
cognizable unless he has satisfied the conditions set forth
by Heck. Plaintiffs pleadings show that his
administrative challenges to the conviction were denied, and
he does not state or show that the conviction has been
successfully challenged through habeas proceedings or has
otherwise been set aside. As a result, plaintiff does not
meet the Heck requirements and his claims must be
dismissed. See McGrew v. Tex. Bd. Of Pardons and
Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995).
claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to their
being asserted again until the Heck conditions are
met. See Johnson v. ...