Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Russell Hampton's complaint without prejudice. Hampton, an inmate, filed a Section 1983 lawsuit claiming that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by revoking 180 days of previously earned time credits. The district court found Hampton's claims were not cognizable under Section 1983. The Court of Appeals agreed, as a ruling in Hampton's favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of the deprivation of his earned time credits, which has not previously been invalidated as required.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    26 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Russell Hampton's complaint without prejudice. Hampton, an inmate, filed a Section 1983 lawsuit claiming that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by revoking 180 days of previously earned time credits. The district court found Hampton's claims were not cognizable under Section 1983. The Court of Appeals agreed, as a ruling in Hampton's favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of the deprivation of his earned time credits, which has not previously been invalidated as required.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-03-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-1434

    Original Title

    Hampton v. Morton, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Russell Hampton's complaint without prejudice. Hampton, an inmate, filed a Section 1983 lawsuit claiming that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by revoking 180 days of previously earned time credits. The district court found Hampton's claims were not cognizable under Section 1983. The Court of Appeals agreed, as a ruling in Hampton's favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of the deprivation of his earned time credits, which has not previously been invalidated as required.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    26 views3 pages

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Russell Hampton's complaint without prejudice. Hampton, an inmate, filed a Section 1983 lawsuit claiming that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by revoking 180 days of previously earned time credits. The district court found Hampton's claims were not cognizable under Section 1983. The Court of Appeals agreed, as a ruling in Hampton's favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of the deprivation of his earned time credits, which has not previously been invalidated as required.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    TENTH CIRCUIT

    MAR 25 1998

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    RUSSELL M. HAMPTON,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.

    No. 97-1434

    DON MORTON, BILL REED, and


    BEN GRIEGO,

    (D.C. No. 97-D-1878)


    (D. Colo.)

    Defendants-Appellees.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*


    Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.**
    Plaintiff appeals the district courts dismissal of his complaint without prejudice
    for failure to state a claim. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. 1291, and we
    affirm.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally
    disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may
    be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    *

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
    appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This case is therefore ordered
    submitted without oral argument.
    **

    Plaintiff, an inmate at the Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility, filed a pro se


    complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that prison officials violated his
    constitutional rights when they revoked 180 days of his previously awarded earned time
    credits. Plaintiff claims that the loss of these credits will require him to serve an
    additional six months in prison. Plaintiff received the credits between 1990-1996 for his
    participation in the Colorado Department of Corrections Sex Offender Treatment
    Program. On March 6, 1996, Defendants withdrew the credits. Plaintiff alleges that
    Defendants informed him that the credits were revoked because he had failed to
    participate in the treatment program. In his complaint, Plaintiff asserted that the earned
    time credits had already vested and that state law prevented the withdrawal of vested
    earned time credits. He also claimed that the withdrawal of the credits violated the due
    process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the earned time credits were
    revoked summarily. Plaintiff did not seek the restoration of his earned time credits, but
    instead sought money damages. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs claims were
    not cognizable under 1983 and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
    We review de novo the district courts dismissal of a complaint for failure to state
    a claim upon which relief can be granted. Chemical Weapons Working Group, Inc. v.
    United States Dept of the Army, 111 F.3d 1485, 1490 (10th Cir. 1997). We have
    reviewed the parties briefs, pleadings and the entire record before us and agree with the
    decision of the district court. A state prisoner may not bring a 1983 suit for damages if
    2

    the constitutional defect he alleges would, if established, necessarily imply the invalidity
    of the deprivation of his good time credits unless the plaintiff can show that the
    deprivation of the good time credits has previously been invalidated. Edwards v. Balisok,
    117 S.Ct. 1584, 1588 (1997). In this case, Plaintiff alleges that his good time credits
    were wrongfully revoked and that the procedure utilized by prison officials to deprive him
    of the credits violated procedural due process. In deciding these claims, a district court
    would have to determine whether the revocation of the earned time credits was proper.
    Consequently, a judgment in Plaintiffs favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of
    the deprivation of his good time credits. Therefore, we conclude that the district court
    properly dismissed the complaint. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is
    AFFIRMED.
    Entered for the Court,

    Bobby R. Baldock
    Circuit Judge

    You might also like