Case: 16-11172 Date Filed: 04/17/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11172
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-22432-MGC
FELTON BERNARD GREEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DENISE MCGILL-JOHNSTON,
Correctional Probation Specialist,
ANDRE THORNTON,
Correctional Probation Specialist,
JOHN BENNETT,
(de facto) founder, Imani Transition Ministries,
CARLA TAYLOR BENNETT,
(de facto) founder, Imani Transition Ministries,
ANDREW BUSH,
(de facto) Facility Manager, Imani Transition Ministries, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 17, 2017)
Case: 16-11172 Date Filed: 04/17/2017 Page: 2 of 4
Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Felton Bernard Green, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his Rule
60(b) motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his case. On appeal, Green
argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to reconsider because his
§ 1983 claims were not Heck-barred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.
Ct. 2364 (1994). Green also argues that his motion to compel discovery should not
have been denied.
Green’s complaint alleged that, among other things, employees at Imani
Transition Ministries and correctional probation specialists conspired against him
to revoke his parole. He alleged that the documents showing his positive test for
cocaine were fabricated and this, as well as many other procedural errors, resulted
in a procedurally deficient parole revocation. A magistrate judge concluded that
Green’s complaint was essentially a challenge to the revocation of his parole.
Because Green’s allegations challenged the invalidity of his confinement and he
did not show that his parole revocation had been overturned, the magistrate judge
concluded that Green’s claim was Heck-barred. The district court adopted the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Green’s case. Green then filed
a Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied.
2
Case: 16-11172 Date Filed: 04/17/2017 Page: 3 of 4
We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Am.
Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir.
1999). Heck bars the recovery of damages for an allegedly unlawful conviction or
term of imprisonment unless the conviction or term of imprisonment “has been
reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal
court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, 114 S. Ct. at
2372. “[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit [for a sentence that
has not been so invalidated] the district court must consider whether a judgment in
favor of the [prisoner] would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed . . . .” Id., 114 S. Ct. at
2372.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Green’s motion to
reconsider the dismissal of his case. Green’s allegations, if proven true, would
have necessarily implied the invalidity of his parole revocation for a drug violation
and his resulting imprisonment. See id., 114 S. Ct. at 2372. Because Green’s
allegations would imply the invalidity of his confinement, the Heck-bar applies and
Green’s § 1983 claims must be dismissed. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Green’s Rule 60(b) motion. See NW. Nat’l Ins. Co., 198 F.3d
3
Case: 16-11172 Date Filed: 04/17/2017 Page: 4 of 4
at 1338. Consequently, the court properly denied as moot Green’s motion to
compel discovery.
AFFIRMED.
4