Gastelum-Almeida v. Jarvis et al

Filing 9

ORDER dismissing action without prejudice; directing the Clerk to ENTER JUDGMENT dismissing the action; to TERMINATE any pending motion, and to CLOSE the case. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 11/30/2012. (BK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
RICHARD GASTELUM-ALMEIDA,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-354-Oc-23PRL

TAMYRA JARVIS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
While incarcerated at the United States penitentiary in Coleman, Florida,
Gastelum-Almeida filed a complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (authorizing a civil rights action
against a federal official). Gastelum-Almeida seeks expungement of his disciplinary
conviction and restoration of good time credit lost as a result of a disciplinary hearing
on February 16, 2012.1
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) holds that:
[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence
invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or
sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by
executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to
make such a determination, or called into question by a federal
court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus[.]

1

Gastelum-Almeida was transferred to and is now incarcerated at the United States
penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas

512 U.S. at 487 (footnote omitted). The Supreme Court has applied Heck to a claim
challenging a prison disciplinary action even when reinstatement of lost good-time
credit is not explicitly sought. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997)
(holding that Heck bars a prisoner's complaint that “would, if established, imply the
invalidity of the deprivation of his good-time credits”). Moreover, the Supreme
Court stated that one reason for imposing the requirement is to prevent a convicted
criminal defendant from collaterally attacking his criminal conviction through a civil
action. 512 U.S. at 484.
Because a decision for Gastelum-Almeida in this action would imply the
invalidity of his disciplinary conviction and because Gastelum-Almeida has not
shown that the disciplinary conviction was reversed on direct appeal, expunged by
executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into question by a
federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, this action is premature.
Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Clerk is directed to enter
judgment dismissing the action without prejudice, to terminate any pending motion,
and to close the case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 30, 2012.

-2-