Schafer v. MooreSchafer v. Moore
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Wollman, John R. Gibson, Beam (per curiam)
PER CURIAM.
Allen L. Schafer, a Missouri inmate, appeals the district court‘s1 dismissal of his
I.
The relevant facts are undisputed. In 1980 the Missouri legislature enacted
Schafer alleged that in 1989 he pleаded guilty to rape and was sentenced to six years imprisonment. According to the cоmplaint, even though Schafer participated in the MOSOP, he was not paroled because he failed to complete the program. The complaint further stated that Schafer had unsuccessfully petitioned for state habeas relief. Relevant to this аppeal, Schafer argued that application of the 1990 amendment to him violаted the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution and that the MOSOP statute constituted a bill of attаinder. In addition to money damages, Schafer sought immediate release. Defendants mоved to dismiss arguing, inter alia, that section 1983 relief was not available because Schafer was attacking the duration, and not a condition, of his confinement.
II.
We review de novo a district court‘s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. See Ring v. First Interstate Mortgage, Inc., 984 F.2d 924, 926 (8th Cir.1993).
Since the district court‘s ruling, the Supreme Court in Heck v. Humphrey, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), held that, if a judgment in favor of a prisoner in a section 1983 action would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, continued imprisonment, or sentence, then no claim for damages lies unless the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged, or called into question by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2372. The plain language of the complaint demonstrates Schafer is challenging the duration of his confinement, i.e., if he were to prevail in his section 1983 suit, the result would necessarily imply the invalidity of his continued confinement. Therefore, in light of Heck, the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a сlaim. See Heck, --- U.S. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2372; Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C.Cir.1994) (under Heck,
Although we affirm the district court‘s order, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice so that Schafer can refile his complaint should he succeed in challenging the legality of his сontinued confinement through appropriate state or federal remedies. See, e.g., Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499-500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1840-41, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (inmate challenging duration of his physical imprisonment must exhaust state remedies and petition for writ of habeas corpus under
We reject as meritless Schafer‘s argument that the MOSOP statute constitutes a bill of attainder. A bill of attaindеr is “a legislative Act which inflicts punishment on named individuals or members of an easily ascertаinable group without a judicial trial.” Ambassador Books & Video, Inc. v. City of Little Rock, 20 F.3d 858, 865 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. O‘Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 383 n. 30, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 1683 n. 30, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 186, 130 L.Ed.2d 120 (1994). Because the MOSOP statute applies only to persons who have already been convictеd of sex offenses, it cannot be classified as a bill of attainder. We decline to address those arguments Schafer raises for the first time on appeal. See Dorothy J. v. Littlе Rock Sch. Dist., 7 F.3d 729, 734 (8th Cir.1993).
Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, we affirm but modify the judgment to a dismissal without prejudice.