FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 26, 2009
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
KEVIN WAYNE BROWN,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 08-3331
v. (D.C. No. 08-CV-03043-SAC)
SAM CLINE; (FNU) ACKLEY, (D. Kan.)
Correctional Supervisor I, Hutchinson
Correctional Facility; (FNU)
MARTIN, Lieutenant, Hutchinson
Correctional Facility; (FNU) BROWN,
Master Sergeant, Hutchinson
Correctional Facility; MARY
NELSON, Chief of Security,
Hutchinson Correctional Facility;
STEVE SCHNEIDER, Compliance
Officer, Hutchinson Correctional
Facility; (FNU) MOSA, Hutchinson
Correctional Facility; (FNU)
LANDSAGER, Disciplinary
Administrator, Hutchinson
Correctional Facility; (FNU) ELLIS,
Unit Team, Hutchinson Correctional
Facility; (FNU) KIDD, Hutchinson
Correctional Facility; (FNU) HURT,
Correctional Officer II, Hutchinson
Correctional Facility,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
Before HARTZ, McKAY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
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). The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. At the
time he filed his pro se complaint, Plaintiff was an inmate in a Kansas state
correctional facility. The complaint alleged that a correctional officer at that
facility filed false disciplinary reports in retaliation for Plaintiff’s filing of
grievances against the officer. The complaint also alleged that the disciplinary
hearing on the retaliatory reports was conducted by a hearing officer who had
improperly discussed the charges with the correctional officer prior to the
hearing. The complaint further alleged that other prison officials falsely
corroborated the correctional officer’s false disciplinary reports and failed to
properly investigate or process Plaintiff’s administrative grievances regarding the
correctional officer and hearing officer.
Because the sanction imposed on the charged disciplinary infractions
included the loss of 111 days of earned, good-time credits and Plaintiff had not
shown that the charges were invalidated, the district court concluded that
Plaintiff’s claims against the correctional officer and hearing officer were barred
-2-
by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), and Edwards v. Balisok, 520
U.S. 641, 648 (1997). The court further concluded that, to the extent any of
Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining Defendants were not barred by Heck,
these claims failed to state a cognizable constitutional claim. Based on these
conclusions, the court directed Plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should
not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failing to state a
claim on which relief could be granted. Plaintiff filed no response, and the court
accordingly dismissed the complaint for the reasons stated in the show cause
order.
On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
complaint because, regardless of Heck and the other cases cited by the district
court, his rights were violated. We hold that the district court did not err by
following clear Supreme Court precedent. Plaintiff’s claims that the disciplinary
reports against him were false and retaliatory and that the disciplinary hearing
was conducted improperly are claims that necessarily implicate the validity of the
disciplinary charges and the sanctions imposed, including the loss of good-time
credits. Heck and Edwards make clear that Plaintiff does not have a cognizable §
1983 claim under these circumstances unless he can show that the disciplinary
convictions have been invalidated. Plaintiff has made no such showing.
Plaintiff’s appellate brief does not clearly address the district court’s
conclusion that his claims against the remaining defendants were barred by Heck
-3-
or subject to summary dismissal because he had not alleged that those Defendants
personally participated in depriving him of a constitutional right. Even if we
construe Plaintiff’s brief liberally to have included this argument on appeal, our
independent review of the record persuades us that the court did not err by
dismissing these claims.
Therefore, for substantially the reasons stated by the district court, we
AFFIRM the dismissal of Plaintiff’s § 1983 complaint.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-4-