Reginald Williams v. Eric Hinyard, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-30396 Vacated and Remanded] Judge: JLW , Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO. Mandate pull date is 11/05/2010 [09-30396]

Reginald Williams v. Eric Hinyard, et al

Doc. 0

Case: 09-30396

Document: 00511233382

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/14/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-30396 S u m m a r y Calendar September 14, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

R E G I N A L D WILLIAMS, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t v. E R I C HINYARD; JUAN CONRAD; KEVIN SMITH; WILLIE DICKENS, D e fe n d a n t s -A p p e lle e s

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Middle District of Louisiana U S D C No. 3:08-CV-656

B e fo r e WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* R e g in a ld Williams, Louisiana prisoner # 364941, appeals the district c o u r t's grant of summary judgment and dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 c o m p la in t for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). He argues that the Louisiana State Penitentiary officers used excessive force w h e n they sprayed him with an excessive amount of a chemical irritant and that t h e ir use of force was in retaliation for his successful appeal of a prior unrelated p r is o n disciplinary conviction. He seeks damages, a declaratory judgment, and
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-30396

Document: 00511233382 Page: 2 No. 09-30396

Date Filed: 09/14/2010

a n injunction requiring officers to videotape any future use of force involving c h e m i c a l agents. The district court determined that Williams's claims were b a r r e d by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U .S . 641, 648-49 (1997). T h e district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment a n d dismissed Williams's complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Mayfield v . Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 529 F.3d 599, 603-04 (5th Cir. 2008); Cousin v . Small, 325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is proper "if the p le a d in g s , the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show t h a t there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is e n tit le d to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(2). F ir s t , Williams argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claim t h a t the defendants acted in retaliation for his successful appeal of a prior u n r e la t e d disciplinary conviction. Williams alleged under penalty of perjury t h a t he was charged and convicted of an offense; Captain Hinyard had in v e s t i g a t e d and recommended that he be convicted; and his disciplinary c o n v ic t io n was overturned on appeal. He also alleged that about two weeks after h is successful appeal, Captain Hinyard and others used excessive force against h im in retaliation. In light of the foregoing, Williams has alleged a chronology o f events from which retaliation may be plausibly inferred. See Woods v. Smith, 6 0 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (5th Cir. 1995). Because an inmate is not required to d e m o n s t r a t e a favorable outcome of a disciplinary case if he is alleging a r e t a lia to r y motive, the district court erred in dismissing Williams's retaliation c la im as barred by Heck. See id. N e x t , Williams argues that the district court erred in dismissing his e x c e s s iv e force claim and did not apply the summary judgment standard; that H e c k and Balisok are inapplicable because he is not challenging a disciplinary c o n v ic t io n or the length of his confinement; and that the defendants waived the 2

Case: 09-30396

Document: 00511233382 Page: 3 No. 09-30396

Date Filed: 09/14/2010

a r g u m e n t that his claims were barred by Heck by failing to raise it in the district c o u r t. He contends that the district court's decision was unreasonable and c o n t r a r y to federal law, citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000), and h e argues that the district court failed to follow Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 , 6-7 (1992), and Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321 (1986). T h e record reflects that Williams was adjudicated as an habitual offender. Louisiana law provides that habitual offenders are not eligible to earn good time c r e d it s . LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 15:571.3(C)(2) (inmate sentenced as habitual o ffe n d e r under LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 15:529.1 is ineligible to receive good time c r e d it s ). Although Williams argued that Heck and Edwards do not apply as a r e s u lt in his objections to the magistrate judge's report, the district court did not s p e c ific a lly address this contention. It is therefore not clear as a matter of law t h a t William's action would necessarily affect the duration of his confinement. See Edwards, 520 U.S. at 646-48; see also Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 7 5 4 -5 5 (2004); see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78-82 (2005). We t h e r e fo r e also vacate the district court's dismissal of Williams's excessive force c la im as barred by Heck and Edwards for further consideration of this issue. See E d w a r d s , 520 U.S. at 646-48; see also Muhammad, 540 U.S. at 754-55; W ilk in s o n , 544 U.S. at 78-82. Finally, Williams's claim for prospective injunctive relief, if successful, w o u ld not necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed in the p r io r disciplinary proceeding. See Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 78-82; see also Kyles v . Garrett, 353 F. App'x 942 (5th Cir. Nov. 30, 2009) (unpublished). The nature o f Williams's request is distinguishable from that in Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 1 8 6 , 189 (5th Cir. 1998)(en banc), as the relief sought here is purely prospective a n d would not call into question the past events. See Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 7 8 -8 2 . Therefore, summary judgment was not appropriate on his claim for p r o s p e c t iv e injunctive relief. We do not, however, express any opinion as to the u n d e r ly in g merits of the claim. 3

Case: 09-30396

Document: 00511233382 Page: 4 No. 09-30396

Date Filed: 09/14/2010

A c c o r d in g ly , the district court's grant of summary judgment and dismissal o f William's claims is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further p r o c e e d in g s .

4