Rollins v. Fisch
696 F. App'x 856
10th Cir.2017Background
- Rollins, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (ifp), sued a federal prosecutor and his public defender for money damages, alleging a conspiracy and constitutional violations during his criminal proceedings.
- He brought claims under Bivens and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), seeking only monetary relief.
- The district court dismissed the suit as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because success on the claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, which has not been reversed or invalidated.
- Rollins previously sought to challenge his sentence via 28 U.S.C. § 2255; those habeas claims were rejected as time-barred, and the court found he had not shown due diligence for equitable tolling.
- The district court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied ifp status on appeal; Rollins appealed and requested ifp status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether money-damages claims against federal actors are permissible when underlying conviction remains valid | Rollins: prosecutor failed to notify him of federal indictment and public defender was ineffective; seeks damages under Bivens/§1985 | Defendants: Heck bar and related precedent prevent damages claims that would impugn a valid conviction/sentence | Dismissed as frivolous; Heck/Crow bar applies because conviction/sentence not invalidated |
| Whether dismissal under §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) was proper | Rollins: claims are nonfrivolous and substantive | District court: claims rest on a meritless legal theory and baseless factual contentions | Affirmed — claims frivolous; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether Rollins may proceed ifp on appeal after district court certified lack of good faith | Rollins: indigent and requests ifp on appeal | District court/defendants: no reasoned, nonfrivolous argument shown; appeal not in good faith | Denied ifp status on appeal for failure to show a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument |
| Whether to assess a strike under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) for this dismissal/appeal | (No substantive plaintiff defense) | Court: prior dismissals count; frivolous appeal also counts | Second §1915(g) strike assessed for the appellate dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (establishes implied damages action against federal officers)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (requires conviction/sentence be invalidated before damages claims that imply invalidity may proceed)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (standards for dismissing frivolous in forma pauperis claims)
- Cohen v. Longshore, 621 F.3d 1311 (10th Cir. 2010) (limited exception allowing damages claims when no habeas remedy exists due to the petitioner’s diligence)
- Jennings v. Natrona Cty. Det. Ctr. Med. Facility, 175 F.3d 775 (10th Cir. 1999) (both district-court and appellate frivolous dismissals count as strikes under §1915(g))