Christopher Jones v. Theresa Delbalso, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY JR. and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 4. CLD-186

Case: 17-3741

Document: 003112948922

Page: 1

CLD-186

Date Filed: 06/06/2018

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-3741
___________
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN JONES,
Appellant
v.

THERESA DELBALSO, Superintendent; JOHN WIEKRYKAS, Records Supervisor
Common Pleas Court of Berks County; JAMES P. TROUTMAN, Clerk of Court et al,
others; ELLEN R. WEST, District Attorney's Office; A. TAYLOR WILLIAMS, Chief of
Litigation; JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary of Department of Correction; FILOSKY, Right
to Law Records/Chief Counsel, Governor's Office et al, and others; MAGISTRATE
JAMES TUPPER, District Justice et al, and others; KELLY M. SEKULA, Attorney
General Office, Senior Deputy Attorney & Appeals and Legal Service Section; GEORGE
WAGNER, Warden of Berks County Prison; JOHN DOE, Criminal Records Supervisor
et al, and others sued individually and in their official capacity; JANE DOE, Criminal
Records Supervisor et al, and others sued individually and in their official capacity
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 5-17-cv-04390)
District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker
____________________________________
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
April 19, 2018
Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, Jr., and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 6, 2018)
OPINION *
PER CURIAM

*

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

Case: 17-3741

Document: 003112948922

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/06/2018

Christopher Jones appeals pro se from the District Court’s dismissal of his
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We will summarily affirm because
no substantial question is presented by this appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir.
I.O.P. 10.6.
Jones, an inmate confined at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy in
Frackville, Pennsylvania, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983,
accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Though difficult to decipher, it appears
that Jones alleged that (1) two of his convictions have been vacated and that he is thus
being held illegally, and (2) that his sentence has been incorrectly calculated. 1 By order
entered November 13, 2017, the District Court granted Jones leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismissed his complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court held that

constitute binding precedent.
1
In 1992, Jones was initially sentenced in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to a
term of ten to twenty years of incarceration for aggravated assault. While he was serving
this sentence, Jones was found to be in possession of marijuana, and sentence to five days
of incarceration. In 2003, while Jones was serving the remainder of sentence at an
ADAPPT facility (a halfway house), Jones escaped the facility. Before Jones was
apprehended, he committed several sex offenses. Jones was then convicted of two counts
of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, and sentenced to seven to fourteen years of
incarceration, to run concurrently. Jones was also convicted of escape, and sentenced to
six months to two years of incarceration. As indicated by a sentence status summary
prepared by the Department of Corrections and submitted by Jones as an exhibit to his
complaint, Jones’ controlling minimum date is May 28, 2011, and his controlling
maximum date is May 28, 2018. Dkt # 1-3, at 14.
2

Case: 17-3741

Document: 003112948922

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/06/2018

Jones’s complaint was barred by Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973), and
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). Jones appeals. 2
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of
the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a
claim. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). “[W]e accept all
factual allegations as true [and] construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting
Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002)).
We agree that Jones has failed to state a claim under § 1983 and that the District
Court correctly dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It is
well-settled that when a state prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his confinement,
his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus, not § 1983 action. Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Additionally, a state prisoner’s claim for damages
is not cognizable under § 1983 if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,” unless the prisoner can show that the
conviction or sentence has been invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487
(1994); see also Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002).

2

Following the District Court’s dismissal order, Jones filed a motion requesting that the
Court intervene in his PCRA proceedings, which was denied by the District Court. In his
subsequent notice of appeal, Jones specifically appeals the District Court’s dismissal
order, and does not appeal the denial of his motion to intervene.
3

Case: 17-3741

Document: 003112948922

Page: 4

Date Filed: 06/06/2018

To the extent that Jones challenges the fact and duration of his confinement, his
sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus, and he is precluded from attacking those
decisions through § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500. To the extent that Jones seeks
damages under § 1983 for his allegedly illegal confinement and sentence, a favorable
outcome would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his incarceration. Since Jones
has not successfully challenged his confinement in any state or federal proceeding, he
may not proceed under § 1983, and his complaint was properly dismissed. See Heck, 512
U.S. at 487. 3
For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

3

Although Jones claims that his two convictions for involuntary deviate sexual
intercourse (“IDSI”) “have been repealed and deleted as of December 9, 2002,” dkt # 1,
at 7, nothing in his extensive exhibits suggests that his incarceration is pursuant to an
expired sentence. Rather, an exhibit provided by Jones shows that a seven to fourteen
year sentence for two IDSI convictions was imposed in 2004.
4