Bernard Williams v. Kimberly Barkley

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. BLD-352.

Case: 15-1463

Document: 003112087319

Page: 1

BLD-352

Date Filed: 09/30/2015

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-1463
___________
BERNARD WILLIAMS,
Appellant
v.
KIMBERLY A. BARKLEY,
Individual & Official Capacity
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 3-14-cv-01600)
District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley
____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 23, 2015
Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 30, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-1463

Document: 003112087319

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/30/2015

Bernard Williams, a state-court prisoner, appeals the District Court’s order
dismissing his civil rights lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We will affirm.
Williams filed suit against the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation
and Parole. His complaint alleged that he was sentenced to serve two to four years for a
state-court conviction in 2008. After he was released on parole in 2010, he was arrested
and convicted of a new offense. Thereafter, the parole board extended the maximum date
for his original conviction to June 22, 2013—this calculation included the eighteen
months he was out of prison on parole. Williams alleged that this sentencing calculation
violated his rights against double jeopardy, as he has “been twice punished for the same
crime.” He requested compensation for the eighteen months he was unlawfully confined
and that the District Court credit the eighteen months against the prison sentence for the
second conviction. The District Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss,
concluding that Williams’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994).
Williams appealed. We have jurisdiction over his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1291 and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal order. See Allah v.
Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We may summarily affirm if the appeal
presents no substantial questions. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
We agree with the District Court that William’s claims are barred under Heck. In
Heck, the Court held that a state prisoner’s claim for damages is not cognizable under §
2

Case: 15-1463

Document: 003112087319

Page: 3

Date Filed: 09/30/2015

1983 if it calls into question the lawfulness of his conviction or confinement, unless he
can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. at 48687. Williams does not allege that his sentence has already been invalidated, and to grant
his requested relief—compensation for his confinement and credit for time-served
applied to his new conviction—would necessarily imply the invalidity of the Parole
Board’s decision to revoke his parole. See Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173, 177 (3d
Cir. 2006) (applying Heck to parole revocation decisions). Accordingly, he is precluded
from attacking that decision through § 1983.
Because this appeal presents us with no substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 3rd Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

3