7:02-CV-013-RUnited States District Court, N.D. Texas, Wichita Falls
February 13, 2002
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
BUCHMEYER, Judge
This is an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by an inmate confined in the Allred Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Iowa Park. Texas. Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to two false prison disciplinary actions by Defendants. See Complaint. He seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief Id.
Teague has failed to state a colorable claim under § 1983. An inmate who is entitled to mandatory supervised release may have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in earned good time credits such that chic process attaches to any proceeding in which such credits are revoked. Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 769 (5th Cir. 1997). However, where a favorable determination in a civil rights action would automatically entitle a prisoner to accelerated release, he must obtain a favorable habeas judgment prior to seeking redress under § 1983 Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1151, 119 S.Ct. 1052 (1999); Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31
(5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1059, 116 S.Ct. 736 (1996); see also, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827 (1973) (holding that the proper avenue to seek restoration of lost good-time credits is a habeas corpus proceeding rather than a civil rights action).
Teague claims that he lost previously earned good time credits and that he has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in those credits Complaint p. 21. Assuming, arguendo, that he is entitled to mandatory supervised release, Teague has not shown that the results of the disciplinary proceedings have been reversed. invalidated or otherwise called into question. Thus, his civil rights claims are currently barred under the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994). See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 1588-89 (1997) (holding that a claim based on allegations that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a disciplinary hearing is not cognizable in a civil rights action unless the disciplinary action has been reversed, expunged or otherwise invalidated).
A district court may dismiss a complaint filed by a prisoner proceedin in forma pauperis if it determines that the action is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989); Henson-El v. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 53
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1235, ill S.Ct. 2863 (1991). A complaint is without an arguable basis in law if it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833. The civil rights claims set forth in the case at bar have no arguable basis in law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s civil rights claims are hereby dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and with prejudice to their being asserted again unless Plaintiff can demonstrate that the conditions set forth in Heck v. Humphrey have been satisfied.[1]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent Plaintiff’s complaint presents claims cognizable in a habeas proceeding, such claims are hereby dismissed without prejudice to his tight to seek federal habeas relief after fully exhausting state remedies.[2]
JUDGMENT
This action came on for consideration by the Court, and the issues having been duly considered and a decision duly rendered,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s civil rights claims be, and they are hereby, dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and with prejudice to their being asserted again until the conditions set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) are satisfied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s habeas claims are hereby dismissed without prejudice to his right to seek federal habeas relief after exhausting state remedies.