From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Livingston

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jan 8, 2010
360 F. App'x 531 (5th Cir. 2010)

Summary

holding that when a prisoner "challenge the validity of his disciplinary convictions in his § 1983 complaint and [is seeking] expungement, his claims [are] barred by Heck"

Summary of this case from Smithey v. Mgmt. Training Corp.

Opinion

No. 09-20281. Summary Calendar.

January 8, 2010.

Alan Wade Johnson, Beeville, TX, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, USDC No. 4:08.

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.


Alan Wade Johnson, Texas prisoner #660513, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed against several employees of the Wynne Unit and McConnell Unit in the Texas Department of Justice-Correctional Institutions Division. Johnson argues that the district court erred in finding that his challenges to his disciplinary convictions were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), the court erred in finding that Johnson did not present a cognizable due process claim because his disciplinary sanctions did not implicate a liberty interest, his claim for compensatory damages was not barred by the fact that he failed to allege a physical injury, he alleged facts sufficient to support a finding that the defendants' actions were motivated by retaliation, he was denied the right to meaningful review of his grievances, he was entitled to punitive damages because the defendants were motivated by evil intent, the district court erred in denying Johnson the opportunity to amend his complaint, and the district court erred in denying his motion to recuse.

Johnson argues that the "favorable termination rule" of Heck should not apply to his case because he is without a procedural vehicle to challenge his disciplinary convictions. Contrary to Johnson's argument, he is able to seek federal habeas relief and has not shown that he is without a procedural vehicle to challenge his disciplinary convictions. See Randell v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 300, 300-01 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Johnson challenged the validity of his disciplinary convictions in his § 1983 complaint and sought expungement, his claims were barred by Heck. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648-49, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997).

Johnson also challenges the district court's finding that his due process claims were barred from review because he had no cognizable liberty interest implicated by his disciplinary sanctions. Loss of privileges and cell restriction do not implicate due process concerns. Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000). Additionally, Johnson is not eligible for mandatory supervised release; therefore, the loss of good-time credits also does not implicate due process. See Arnold v. Cockrell, 306 F.3d 277, 279 (5th Cir. 2002); Malchi, 211 F.3d at 957-58.

Johnson's argument for compensatory damages based on psychological injury is foreclosed by this court's holding in Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374-75 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court properly dismissed Johnson's retaliation claims because Johnson failed to present facts to show that the disciplinary reports would not have been filed or that he would not have been transferred but for a retaliatory motive. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). Johnson argues that he was denied the right to meaningful review of his convictions, grievances, and appeals because his requests for relief were denied. Johnson does not have a federally protected interest in having grievances resolved to his satisfaction, and therefore his argument is without merit. See Geiger, 404 F.3d at 374.

Because there is no support in the record for Johnson's conclusory assertions that the defendants' actions were motivated by evil intent, the district court did not err in dismissing his claim for punitive damages. See Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983).

Johnson argues that the district court erred in denying him the opportunity to amend his complaint. However, the record does not indicate that Johnson filed a motion to amend his complaint. Therefore, there was no error by the district court. See Lowrey v. Texas A M University System, 117 F.3d 242, 245 (5th Cir. 1997). Additionally, Johnson's motion for recusal was untimely filed, and the district court properly denied it as such. See United States v. Sanford, 157 F.3d 987, 988-89 (5th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. All other outstanding motions are DENIED.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Livingston

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jan 8, 2010
360 F. App'x 531 (5th Cir. 2010)

holding that when a prisoner "challenge the validity of his disciplinary convictions in his § 1983 complaint and [is seeking] expungement, his claims [are] barred by Heck"

Summary of this case from Smithey v. Mgmt. Training Corp.
Case details for

Johnson v. Livingston

Case Details

Full title:Alan Wade JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Brad LIVINGSTON, Executive…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jan 8, 2010

Citations

360 F. App'x 531 (5th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Tanner

Smith's own testimony establishes that his stay in lockdown deprived him only of certain limited prison…

Schuff v. Perkins

The court notes that Johnson v. Livingston, 360 Fed.Appx. 531 (5th Cir. 2010), like the case now before the…