FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 13, 2011
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
MELVIN ELLIS HOLLY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 11-7004
(D.C. No. 6:10-CV-00405-JHP)
WARREN GOTCHER, d/b/a Gotcher (E.D. Okla.)
Law Firm; DENNIS DELA, individually;
ROY ALFORD, individually; LATIMER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, STATE OF
OKLAHOMA,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is, therefore,
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.
submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff/appellant Melvin Ellis Holly appeals the district court’s order
characterizing his complaint as a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside or
correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and transferring the motion to this court.
We conclude that Holly’s complaint was an attempt to bring claims for damages pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, Holly states no viable claims under § 1983. We,
therefore, remand to the district court with instructions to vacate its order characterizing
Holly’s complaint as a second or successive § 2255 motion and then to dismiss Holly’s
complaint without prejudice.
I
Holly, a former sheriff, was convicted on fourteen federal counts relating to the
sexual abuse of inmates, employees, and an employee’s daughter at the Latimer County,
Oklahoma jail. On direct appeal, this court vacated four of Holly’s convictions due to a
jury instruction error. Holly subsequently filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel and other constitutional errors. The district court
dismissed Holly’s habeas petition and denied a certificate of appealability. This court
affirmed. United States v. Holly, 364 F. App’x 471 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).
Holly then filed the instant complaint naming his attorney, the Latimer County
Board of Commissioners, and three individual commissioners as defendants. Holly
alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to investigate his
2
case and providing him ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Holly asks the court to require
the defendants to provide him with the services of an attorney and private investigators,
and also seeks punitive damages. He does not specifically seek to have his conviction
vacated. The district court issued an order construing Holly’s complaint as a motion to
vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Holly had
previously filed a § 2255 motion, the district court transferred the motion to this court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Holly appealed the district
court’s characterization of his complaint, arguing that he did not seek to bring a § 2255
motion.
II
Because Holly does not actually seek to have his conviction vacated and, instead,
seeks damages and the funding of counsel and private investigators, his pleading is more
properly characterized as an attempt to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cf. United
States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d 1145, 1149 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting that, when determining
whether a pleading is a § 2255 motion or a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, “[i]t is the relief
sought, not [the] pleading’s title, that determines whether the pleading is a § 2255
motion”). Nonetheless, we conclude that any error by the district court in characterizing
Holly’s petition was harmless because Holly’s § 1983 claims are barred under the rule of
1
Holly also alleges that he was beaten and raped in prison. However, the only
connection between the defendants’ actions and what transpired in prison is that,
according to Holly, the defendants caused him to be convicted. This connection is too
attenuated to state a claim against the defendants relating to the prison incidents.
3
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
In Heck, the Supreme Court held that “where success in a prisoner’s § 1983
damages action would implicitly question the validity of conviction or duration of
sentence, the litigant must first achieve favorable termination of available state, or federal
habeas, opportunities to challenge the underlying conviction or sentence.” Muhammad v.
Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam). Holly’s claims are all based on the
argument that he was deprived of due process and, thus, implicitly question the validity of
his convictions. His convictions on ten counts have not been vacated and, therefore, his
claims are barred under Heck.
III
The decision of the district court characterizing Holly’s pleading as a 28 U.S.C. §
2255 motion is reversed. This case is remanded to the district court with instructions to
vacate its order characterizing Holly’s complaint as a second or successive § 2255 motion
and then to dismiss Holly’s complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Holly’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
granted. We remind Holly that he is still required to make partial payments of the filing
fee until it is paid in full.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Chief Judge
4