O'Neill v. King
668 F. App'x 835
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Daniel O’Neill, a New Mexico state inmate proceeding pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a parole date for one of his convictions was miscalculated.
- Defendants named included the New Mexico Attorney General, an Assistant Attorney General, the New Mexico Corrections Department, and the New Mexico Parole Board.
- The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and imposed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- The district court concluded O’Neill’s allegations were contradicted by the state record and that the named defendants were improper targets for § 1983 relief.
- The court also held that success on O’Neill’s claim would implicate the validity of his sentence, invoking Heck bar to § 1983 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint was frivolous | O’Neill: parole date miscalculated; seeks relief | Defendants: record contradicts claim; no arguable factual or legal basis | Dismissal as frivolous affirmed (no arguable basis) |
| Whether complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim | O’Neill: named entities/officials liable under § 1983 | Defendants: Corrections Dept. & Parole Board are state entities; officials immune; prosecutorial immunity applies | Dismissal for failure to state a claim affirmed |
| Whether state agencies and officials are proper § 1983 defendants | O’Neill: sued agencies and officials for relief | Defendants: state agencies not "persons" under § 1983; parole board/attorneys immune | Agencies non-suable; parole board/attorneys immune; claims barred |
| Whether Heck doctrine bars relief | O’Neill: challenges parole calculation without collaterally attacking sentence | Defendants: relief would imply invalidity of sentence; Heck prohibits | Heck bars § 1983 relief that would imply sentence invalidity |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (complaints lacking arguable basis in law or fact are frivolous)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 claim that would imply invalidity of conviction/sentence is barred until conviction/sentence is invalidated)
- Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state agencies are not "persons" under § 1983)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (prosecutorial immunity protects certain actions by prosecutors)
- Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (2015) (rules governing imposition and immediate counting of § 1915(g) strikes)
- Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (standard: abuse of discretion review for dismissal as frivolous)
- Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723 (10th Cir. 2010) (de novo review for Rule 12(b)(6) legal conclusions)
- Gillette v. New Mexico Parole Bd., [citation="42 F. App'x 210"] (10th Cir. 2002) (parole board members immune for official-capacity actions)