William Muse v. Ouachita Parish, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [10-30521 Affirmed in Part, Vacated in Part and Remanded.] Judge: JLD , Judge: EBC , Judge: JWE. Mandate pull date is 01/11/2011; granting motion leave to file a supplemental document filed by Appellant Mr. William A. Muse [6637984-2]; granting motion to proceed IFP in accordance with PLRA filed by Appellant Mr. William A. Muse [6593586-2] [10-30521]

William Muse v. OuachitaeParish, et al Cas : 10-30521

Document: 00511328840 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-30521 S u m m a r y Calendar December 21, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

W I L L I A M A. MUSE, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t v. S H E R I F F 'S DEPARTMENT, OUACHITA PARISH; ROYCE TONEY; JAY R U S S E L L ; DAVID HARRIS; BRIAN NEWCOMER; LIEUTENANT STEWART; C O R P O R A L JENKINS, 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 Western District of Louisiana U S D C No. 3:09-CV-2230

B e fo r e DENNIS, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* W illia m A. Muse, Louisiana prisoner # 502435, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Muse's motion is a challenge to the district court's certification that his appeal is not taken in g o o d faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Muse has

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-30521 Document: 00511328840 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2010 No. 10-30521 a ls o filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief. His motion to file a s u p p le m e n t a l brief is GRANTED. O n appeal, Muse reiterates that he was improperly placed in a d m in is t r a t iv e lockdown and that his disciplinary conviction should be d is m is s e d . He challenges the validity of his disciplinary conviction and argues t h a t he was falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, illegally searched, and m a lic io u s ly prosecuted. He seeks injunctive and declaratory relief as well as m o n e ta r y damages and the restoration of his good time credits. Muse also c o n t e n d s that prison officials retaliated against him for filing grievances by p la c in g him in administrative lockdown on another occasion. He further

c h a lle n g e s the conditions of his confinement while in lockdown, arguing that his E ig h t h Amendment rights were violated. Muse's challenges regarding his disciplinary conviction call into question t h e validity of the prison disciplinary proceeding; therefore, these claims were b a r r e d by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) because Muse failed t o show that the disciplinary conviction had been reversed or expunged. See E d w a r d s v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48 (1997). Additionally, Muse's challenge t o the loss of good time credits fails because he cannot recover in a § 1983 action t h e good time credits forfeited in his disciplinary proceeding. See Clarke v. S ta ld e r , 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc). To the extent that Muse a r g u e s that his due process rights were violated by being placed in a d m in is t r a t iv e lockdown, the claim is frivolous. See Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 1 9 3 (5th Cir. 1995). The dismissal of the above claims is AFFIRMED. H o w e v e r , because an inmate is not required to demonstrate a favorable o u tc o m e of a disciplinary case if, as here, he is alleging a retaliation claim, the d is t r ic t court abused its discretion in dismissing any such claim as barred by H e c k . See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164-66 (5th Cir. 1995). The district c o u r t also failed to address Muse's Eighth Amendment challenge to the c o n d itio n s of confinement. This claim would also not be barred by Heck. 2

Case: 10-30521 Document: 00511328840 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2010 No. 10-30521 I n light of the foregoing, the district court's certification that Muse's m o t i o n to proceed IFP on appeal was not taken in good faith was erroneous. Whether the facts ultimately establish a retaliation claim or an Eighth A m e n d m e n t violation are not questions to be answered at this stage of the p r o c e e d in g s . See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). The district c o u r t's dismissals of the retaliation claim and Eighth Amendment claim are V A C A T E D and REMANDED for further proceedings. A p p e lla n t 's motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED.

3