UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 95-10556
Summary Calendar
_______________________
ANTHONY L. DELVALLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES; C S LAWSON; K. WHATLEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:95 CV 413 A)
_________________________________________________________________
October 4, 1995
Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony L. Del Valle (Del Valle), a Texas state prisoner,
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se, in forma
pauperis civil rights action against the Texas Board of Pardons &
Paroles (Board). Because Del Valle’s action is properly considered
a petition for writ of habeas corpus and he did not exhaust his
state habeas remedies, this court affirms.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no
precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled
principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
1
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Del Valle filed his complaint, purportedly pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (§ 1983), against the Board as well as his parole and
hearing officers, alleging that his parole revocation hearing was
fundamentally unfair. Specifically, Del Valle raised three claims:
(1) his request to be appointed counsel was denied; (2) his parole
officer allegedly testified falsely against him; and (3) his
hearing officer failed to record the events preceding his hearing
accurately. Del Valle sought reversal of the parole revocation as
well as compensatory damages for mental anguish and lost wages.
The district court found that Del Valle’s pro se, in
forma pauperis complaint was more properly considered a petition
for federal habeas corpus relief than an action under § 1983.
Accordingly, since Del Valle had not exhausted his state remedies,
the district court dismissed the complaint.
II. DISCUSSION
Del Valle contends that the district court erred in
treating his complaint as a petition for habeas corpus relief,
rather than a claim pursuant to § 1983. However, this court has
held that “when a prisoner challenges the result of a single
defective parole hearing, that claim must be pursued by writ of
habeas corpus.” Cook v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice
Transitional Planning Dep’t, 37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1994).1
1
As the district court noted, even if Del Valle had filed a complaint
under § 1983, it would still be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In order
to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional imprisonment, a § 1983
plaintiff must prove that his conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct
appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an authorized state
tribunal, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Heck v. Humphrey, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct.
2364, 2372 (1994). Del Valle’s complaint does not satisfy this prerequisite.
Hence, the district court acted correctly. See, e.g., Tartar v.
Hury, 646 F.2d 1010, 1011-12 (5th Cir. 1981) (dismissing a habeas
claim for failure to exhaust all available state remedies).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this court AFFIRMS the
district court’s dismissal of the complaint.
3