Gastelum-Almeida v. Jarvis et al
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
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-354-Oc-23PRL
TAMYRA JARVIS, et al.,
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[.]
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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?