Case: 12-12175 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12175
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00408-WS-M
DONALD DENNIS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOJO SCHWARZAUER,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(November 13, 2012)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Donald Dennis, an Alabama prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of JoJo Schwarzauer, the
Case: 12-12175 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 2 of 4
Circuit Clerk of Mobile County. On appeal, Dennis argues that the district court
should not have invoked Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481-82, 114 S. Ct. 2364,
2369-70, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994), to bar his claims for relief. He asserts that Heck
does not apply because he challenged Schwarzauer’s denial of his constitutional
right of access to the courts, not the validity of his conviction. Dennis claims that
Schwarzauer violated his right of access to the courts when she mistakenly sent the
wrong inmate’s DNA to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals and failed to
properly attach an amendment Dennis filed with a petition for post conviction relief
that was ultimately dismissed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Robinson v. Tyson
Foods, Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2010). “Summary judgment is
appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, presents no genuine issue of material fact and compels judgment as a matter
of law in favor of the moving party.” Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832,
836-37 (11th Cir. 2006). We may affirm the district court’s judgment on any
ground supported by the record. Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249,
1256 (11th Cir. 2001).
State prisoners must use habeas corpus, not 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when seeking
to invalidate their convictions. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78-82, 125 S. Ct.
2
Case: 12-12175 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 3 of 4
1242, 1245-48, 161 L. Ed. 2d 253 (2005). This bar to challenges under § 1983 to
the fact or duration of confinement was first articulated by Heck, which held that a
§ 1983 action will not lie where “establishing the basis for the damages claim
necessarily demonstrates the invalidity of the conviction.” 512 U.S. at 481-82, 114
S. Ct. at 2369-70. The Supreme Court has stressed the importance of the term
“necessarily,” noting that even where the relief sought may ultimately prove
exculpatory, the “necessarily” standard is not satisfied if the outcome is “hardly
inevitable.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. ___, ___, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1298-99, 179
L. Ed. 2d 233 (2011).
Access to the courts is a right grounded in several constitutional amendments,
including the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d
1279, 1282 (11th Cir. 2003). To assert an access-to-the-courts claim, the plaintiff
must possess a non-frivolous, arguable underlying cause of action, the presentation
of which was prevented by the defendant. See Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222,
1226 (11th Cir. 2006). Indeed, the plaintiff must describe the underlying cause of
action specifically enough in the complaint to show it is more than hope.
Cunningham v. Dist. Attorney’s Office, 592 F.3d 1237, 1271 (2010).
Here, we conclude from the record that the district court correctly found that
Dennis’s claim that Schwarzauer sent the wrong inmate’s DNA to the Alabama
3
Case: 12-12175 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 4 of 4
Court of Criminal Appeals was invalid under Heck. His complaint did not argue
that his constitutional right of access to the courts was infringed by the DNA error
but that the error caused him to be “convicted under someone elses (sic) name.”
As such, Dennis’s DNA-related § 1983 claim attacked his conviction’s validity and
should have been brought as a habeas petition.
The district court also properly dismissed Dennis’s claim regarding the
misfiled amendment. Dennis did not describe the amendment in the complaint
specifically enough to prove the amendment had merit. In the absence of proof that
the underlying amendment itself was arguable and non-frivolous, his access-to-the-
courts claim was correctly dismissed. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
grant of summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
4