IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30317
Summary Calendar
MULK RAJ DASS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN B.Z. CAPLINGER; CHRIS SALE,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CV-1971
- - - - - - - - - -
January 20, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mulk Raj Dass, federal prisoner # 97129-012, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his Bivens** claims under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1). Dass contends that the district court erred in
holding that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1984), rendered
some of his claims premature. Dass argues that the defendants’
misrepresentations to him regarding the issuance of a bond
violated his constitutional rights. He argues that the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
**
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
No. 98-30317
-2-
conditions in the Tulsa County Jail constituted cruel and unusual
punishment. Dass contends that his detention was not justified
under former 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and that his transfer to Oklahoma
without a hearing violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 40(a). Dass also
argues that the district court erred in holding that his claims,
alleging constitutional violations occurring between March 1995
and December 1995, had prescribed.
In Heck, the Supreme Court held that
in order to recover damages for allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or
for other harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence
invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
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, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages
bearing that relationship to a conviction or
sentence that has not been so invalidated is not
cognizable under § 1983.
512 U.S. 486-87 (footnote omitted). A federal prisoner's Bivens
action is subject to the rule enunciated in Heck. Stephenson v.
Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 27-28 (5th Cir. 1994). If a plaintiff’s
successful pursuit of a civil rights claim challenges the
validity of his criminal conviction, and the plaintiff cannot
show that such conviction has been reversed, invalidated, or
otherwise set aside, the court may properly dismiss the civil
rights claim as frivolous. Mackey v. Dickson, 47 F.3d 744, 746
(5th Cir. 1995) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint). However, if a
successful civil rights claim will not demonstrate the invalidity
of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the
action should be allowed to proceed in the absence of some other
No. 98-30317
-3-
bar to the suit. Id. Because Dass’s civil rights claims, if
successful, would not demonstrate the invalidity of any criminal
judgment against Dass, the claims are not premature under Heck.
The conduct underlying Dass’s civil rights claims occurred
between March and December 1995, and Dass did not file his civil
rights complaint until October 1, 1997. The federal courts look
to state law to determine the applicable limitations or
prescriptive period for a Bivens claim. Spina v. Aaron, 821 F.2d
1126, 1128-29 (5th Cir. 1987). The applicable prescriptive
period in Louisiana is one year. Elzy v. Roberson, 868 F.2d 793,
794-95 (5th Cir. 1989). Because Dass did not file his suit
within one year from the alleged acts underlying his claims, his
claims have prescribed. See Elzy, 686 F.2d at 794-95.
AFFIRMED.