Garland v. DSCC Director, 3:16-cv-01287

Plaintiff Delaino Garland, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued federal prison officials and the U.S. Marshals Service seeking money damages for an alleged miscalculation of his sentence and failure to credit pretrial detention time.
He asserted various causes of action (constitutional violations under Bivens, negligence, trade-practice claims, etc.) and claimed the miscalculation affected his custody, placement, and property value.
The district court previously construed Garland’s habeas-type challenge to sentence computation as a § 2241 petition and transferred it to the district where he is confined; the present suit seeks only monetary relief.
The magistrate judge conducted screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2) because Garland is a prisoner proceeding IFP.
The court found Garland’s damages claims necessarily challenge the duration/validity of his confinement and are barred by Heck unless the sentence has been invalidated; Garland has not satisfied Heck’s conditions.
Recommendation: dismiss the complaint with prejudice as frivolous under § 1915A(b) and § 1915(e)(2)(B) until Heck conditions are met, count the dismissal as a strike under § 1915(g), and deny the motion to intervene/implead as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff may pursue money damages under Bivens for alleged sentence miscalculation	Garland argues defendants miscalculated his 85% custody credit and denied pretrial credit, entitling him to monetary damages for resulting harms	Defendants (implicitly) assert such claims challenge duration/validity of confinement and are not cognizable as damages unless Heck conditions are met	Court: damages claims challenging sentence computation are barred by Heck and must be pursued in habeas; Bivens damages not available now
Whether the complaint must be dismissed at screening under §§ 1915A/1915(e)(2)	Garland seeks relief on asserted constitutional and tort theories	Screening statutes permit sua sponte dismissal of frivolous claims or claims that fail to state a claim or target immune defendants	Court: complaint is legally frivolous/subject to dismissal under § 1915A(b) and § 1915(e)(2)(B) because Heck bars the claims
Whether dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g)	N/A (procedural)	N/A	Court: dismissal should count as a strike under § 1915(g)

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizes implied damages action against federal officers for constitutional violations)
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (habeas is proper remedy for challenges to duration of confinement)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (damages claims that imply invalidity of conviction/sentence barred until conviction/sentence is invalidated)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (defines frivolousness standard under § 1915)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)