Michael Dilworth v. H. Corpening

Sep 1, 2015
15-6889
Versions:

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Dilworth appeals the district court‘s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. Dilworth‘s complaint challenged a prison disciplinary conviction that resulted in the loss of good time credits, alleged that Defendant Freeman violated his rights under the First Amendment, and sought damages and injunctive relief. Dilworth confines his appeal to the dismissal of his challenge to his prison disciplinary conviction.

The district court properly dismissed the claim because it was not cognizable under § 1983 in the absence of a showing that the disciplinary conviction supporting the revocation of good time credits has been overturned. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645-46, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir.2002) (applying Heck to claims for injunctive relief), abrogated on other grounds by Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011). A prisoner may challenge the revocation of good time credits only by way of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). Accordingly, we modify the district court‘s order to reflect that Dilworth‘s challenge to the revocation of good time credits is dismissed without prejudice to his right to reassert his challenge in a habeas action and affirm the order as modified. See Dilworth v. Corpening, No. 1:15-cv-00036-FDW, 2015 WL 3448785 (W.D.N.C. May 29, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

PER CURIAM:

Mark R. Edwards, Sr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court‘s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Edwards v. Perdue, No. 5:14-cv-00136-FPS-JSK (N.D.W.Va. May 15, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.