Murray v. Battles et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding plaintiff's civil rights lawsuit. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 3/5/2012. (bjc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
GREG MURRAY

§

VS.

§

S. BATTLES, ET AL

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09cv133

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Greg Murray, an inmate confined within the Bureau of
Prisons, proceeding pro se, brings this Bivens-type1 civil rights
lawsuit against Jody R. Upton and J. Richardson.
Factual Background
Plaintiff alleges that on June 26, 2007, he was charged with
a prison disciplinary offense.

During the initial stages of the

disciplinary process, plaintiff spoke with defendant S. Battles, a
counselor.
agreed

to

He states that during their informal discussion, he
sign

a

waiver

of

his

appearance

before

the

Unit

Discipline Committee (“UDC”), but did not waive his right to a
staff representative or to call witnesses in his own defense.
Plaintiff states he signed the upper portion of the applicable form
and was told by defendant Bates that he needed to sign the bottom
of the document as well.

He states that during their discussion,

defendant Bates specifically told him that the waiver only applied
to UDC proceedings.

Plaintiff alleges that after the discussion

concluded, defendant Battles wrote on the form that plaintiff also
waived proceedings before the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”)

1

See Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Bureau of Narcotics and
Dangerous Drugs, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

and filled out additional forms stating plaintiff did not want to
call any witnesses to testify on his behalf and did not wish to
have a staff representative assist him.
Plaintiff states that at a hearing he did not attend, the DHO
found

him

guilty

of

the

disciplinary

offense

and

imposed

punishment, including the forfeiture of previously earned good
conduct time credits. He states that administrative appeals he
filed complaining about the proceedings were all denied.
Standard of Review
An in forma pauperis proceeding shall be dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it:

(1) is frivolous or malicious;

(2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or (3)
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.
A complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations
and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or fact.

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

325 (1989); Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005);
McCormick v. Stadler, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997).

A

complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112
F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). A complaint lacks an arguable basis
in fact if, after providing the plaintiff with the opportunity to
present additional facts when necessary, the facts alleged therein
are clearly baseless or fanciful.
25, 32 (1992).
2

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.

A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted if the factual allegations are not sufficient to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.

Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Dismissal for failure to
state a claim is appropriate when the plaintiff has failed to plead
"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
fact." Id., 127 S.Ct. at 1974. Plaintiffs must state enough facts
to "nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to
plausible."

Id.

In considering whether to dismiss a complaint for failing to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, all factual
allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and construed
favorably to the plaintiff.

Fernandez-Montez v. Allied Pilots

Association,

284

987

F.2d

278,

(5th

Cir.

1993).

However,

conclusory allegations will not suffice to prevent dismissal for
failure to state a claim.

Id.
Analysis

As relief in this matter, plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
As a result, for the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's claim
must be dismissed.
In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
actions whose unlawfulness would render the duration of a person's
imprisonment invalid, a plaintiff must prove that the imprisonment
or its duration has been reversed on appeal, expunged by executive
order, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a

writ of habeas corpus.

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87.2

A claim for damages based on an imprisonment that has not been so
invalidated does not state a cause of action.

The principle that

civil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging
actions relating to the validity of confinement applies to lawsuits
that necessarily require the plaintiff to prove facts which would
imply the unlawfulness of the duration of his confinement. Id. at
487.
As a result, when a prisoner seeks damages in a civil rights
lawsuit, the court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the
plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of the duration of
a plaintiff's confinement.

If it would, the complaint must be

dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that a proceeding
relating to the duration of his confinement has already been
invalidated.

Id.

If, however, the court determines that the

plaintiff's action, even if successful, would not demonstrate the
invalidity of the duration of plaintiff's confinement, the action
should be allowed to proceed, in the absence of any other bar to
the suit.

Id.

In this lawsuit, plaintiff asserts he was denied due process
of law in connection with the disciplinary proceeding described in
his complaint.

A finding in plaintiff's favor would imply that

2

Heck involved a lawsuit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which a
finding in the plaintiff's favor would have implied that a state criminal
conviction was invalid. However, the principles established in Heck also apply
to lawsuits filed pursuant to Bivens and to lawsuits in which a finding in the
plaintiff's favor would imply that a prison disciplinary conviction was
invalid. See Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 27 (5th Cir. 1994), and Edwards
v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-7 (1997).

4

petitioner's disciplinary conviction was invalid. As plaintiff was
forced

to

forfeit

good

conduct

credits

as

a

result

of

the

disciplinary proceeding, a finding in plaintiff's favor would
necessarily

imply

the

invalidity

of

the

duration

of

his

confinement. In other words, if plaintiff were to prevail in this
lawsuit, such a result would imply plaintiff should be released
earlier than would otherwise be the case.

Accordingly, plaintiff

would be entitled to proceed with this claim only if the Heck
requirements regarding a prior finding as to the invalidity of the
disciplinary proceeding were satisfied.

As plaintiff does not

assert that the Heck requirements have been satisfied with respect
to the disciplinary conviction, Heck bars him from proceeding with
this claim.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this civil rights

lawsuit

will be dismissed with prejudice until plaintiff satisfies the
requirements set forth in Heck v. Humphrey. An appropriate final
judgment shall be entered.
SIGNED this the 5 day of March, 2012.

____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge

5