F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 31 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RAYMOND MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 00-1070
v. D. Colo.
MICHAEL C. VILLANO, ANTHONY (D.C. No. 99-Z-2040)
F. VOLLACK, JOHN T.
SCHERLING, STEVEN R. GAYLE,
ROY G. OLSON, JR., HAROLD E.
BRAY, BRADLEY A. ROCKWELL,
MICHAEL A. OBERMEYER, BRIAN
J. MCCOY, HARRY NIMROD, LEE
ZWEIGLE, ED CAMP, ROBERT
TAYLOR, ARISTEDES W.
ZAVARAS, JOHN JUBIC, RICHARD
A. MARR, JUANITA WILLYARD,
CAROL HADLEY, BILL BURDGES,
BEN OWENSLY, OLAH MURPHY,
WILLIAM SELLERS, JUANITA
NOVAK, RANDY MALDEN, JULIE
WOLFF, DAVE ROMERO, DAVE
BEEBE, WILLIAM WILSON, JR.,
JOHN SUTHERS, CHARLES RAY,
JOHN AND/OR JANE DOE,
GEORGE LOWE, GILBERT LOWE,
ARNOLD ROWE, ANNIE ROWE,
MARVIN POE, MAVIS POE,
RANDY PURCELL, STEVEN L.
BROWN, JR., MS. WRIGHT, L.
MAXWELL, MR. PHILLIPS, FRANK
E. RUYBALID, ALAN STUMP, MR.
D. ROBERTSON, and MR. J.
HADLEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK , HENRY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges. **
Mr. Martinez, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his civil rights action. The district court dismissed Mr. Martinez’s amended
complaint in part as legally frivolous, under Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319,
324 (1989), in part as barred by the rule in Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 487
(1994) (stating that when judgment for a plaintiff in a § 1983 suit “would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, . . . the complaint
must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or
sentence has already been invalidated,”) and in part for failure to exhaust state
remedies.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
*
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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.
-2-
Mr. Martinez’s claims are difficult to understand. We construe his
complaint liberally because Mr. Martinez is proceeding pro se, but we cannot be
his advocate. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
Mr. Martinez appears to challenge the validity of two state court
convictions. Mr. Martinez seeks monetary damages and expungement of the
convictions. As to his claims for monetary relief, we agree with the district court
that Mr. Martinez’s claims are barred under Heck and should be dismissed
without prejudice.
To the extent Mr. Martinez is only seeking expungement of his criminal
convictions, a § 1983 action is not the proper vehicle. The Supreme Court has
held that “habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who
challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or
speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of §
1983.” Heck , 512 U.S. at 481, 522; Carson v. Johnson , 112 F.3d 818, 820 (10th
Cir. 1997) ( stating that “[g]enerally, § 1983 suits are the proper vehicle to attack
unconstitutional conditions of confinement and prison procedures”). Thus the
district court properly concluded that, because there is no evidence Mr. Martinez
has exhausted his state court remedies, or that no adequate state remedies are
available or effective to protect Mr. Martinez’s rights, his claims seeking
expungement of his criminal convictions should also be dismissed.
-3-
Mr. Martinez’s remaining claims list a litany of challenges to the conditions
of his confinement, including chronic headaches; restricted document preparation
materials; being forced drinking tap rather than bottled water; having his clothing,
bedding, toothbrush, and similar articles handled with unclean hands; continuing
headaches and neck aches; stress from fear of being transferred and suffering
from restricted privileges; and being forced to eat unpalatable and unwholesome
food. From a review of Mr. Martinez’s contentions and the entire record on
appeal, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed these claims as
well.
We therefore AFFIRM the dismissal of Mr. Martinez’s complaint for
substantially the reasons set forth in the district court's orders dated January 12,
2000.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-4-