Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-20-2005
Ruth v. Richard
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2892
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Ruth v. Richard" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 809.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/809
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DPS-210 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-2892
________________
ANTHONY RUTH, SR.,
Appellant
v.
HEATHER RICHARD;
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA;
YORK COUNTY ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT;
JOHN S. KENNEDY;
WILLIAM GRAFF
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-00760)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 28, 2005
Before: ROTH, BARRY and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Filed July 20, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Anthony Ruth, pro se, appeals an order of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We will summarily affirm.
In 2002, Ruth pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and
was sentenced to twenty-three months’ restricted intermediate punishment under the
supervision of probation officer Dave Weigle. After four months, defendant Heather
Richard replaced Weigle as Ruth’s probation officer.
Ruth admitted that, while he was on probation, he thrice tested positive for illegal
drugs, twice smoked marijuana and once tested at a 0.96 blood alcohol level. He was
unable to obtain employment and incurred a new charge of driving while his license was
suspended. Ruth also failed to appear for scheduled appointments with his probation
officer. In February 2004, pursuant to Richard’s petition for imposition of punishment
for violating probationary conditions, Ruth was sentenced to eleven and one-half to
twenty-three months’ imprisonment.
In April 2004, while he was an inmate at the York County Prison, Ruth filed the
instant complaint. He claimed that the defendants violated his due process rights and
Sixth Amendment rights and subjected him to double jeopardy by revoking his probation
and ordering him to serve time without counting the time he had spent on probation. He
claims that such an action violated the terms of his plea agreement. For relief, Ruth
2
sought immediate release with a “total discharge from conviction,” compensatory
damages for breach of the plea agreement and punitive damages.
The District Court noted that, to the extent Ruth sought release, he was required to
do so by means of a habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 500 (1973). With respect to Ruth’s claims for damages, the District Court
concluded that they were legally frivolous because, pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994), until Ruth has had his conviction invalidated, no civil action lies for
damages. The District Court further concluded that, with respect to Judge Kennedy and
District Attorney Graff, even if Ruth had a cause of action, the defendants were immune
from suit. The District Court, therefore dismissed Ruth’s complaint pursuant to §
1915A(b)(1). Ruth timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We agree with the District Court’s dismissal of Ruth’s claims for the reasons
discussed in the District Court’s memorandum and summarized above.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question on appeal. See
Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For essentially the reasons set forth by the District Court, we
will summarily affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Ruth’s complaint. See Third
Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.
3