Filed: Mar. 18, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: STEVE WHITE, ET AL.John Toolin on brief pro se.his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.DeTella, 319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir.reviewed Toolin's brief and the record on appeal.district court.on this alternative basis.
Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 03-1375
JOHN TOOLIN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
STEVE WHITE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. George Z. Singal, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Selya and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
John Toolin on brief pro se.
March 18, 2004
Per Curiam. Pro se plaintiff-appellant John Toolin, a
prisoner, appeals from the district court's sua sponte dismissal of
his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We
review the dismissal of Toolin's complaint de novo, accepting all
of the well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drawing all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Calhoun v.
DeTella, 319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003); see Soto-Negron v.
Taber Partners I,
339 F.3d 35, 38 (1st Cir. 2003). We have
reviewed Toolin's brief and the record on appeal. We affirm the
dismissal of Toolin's complaint, but on a basis different from the
district court.
In his complaint, Toolin alleges that he was deprived of
additional, discretionary "administrative days" which would have
shortened the length of his sentence.1 The district court said
that Toolin's claims are not cognizable under Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994), because they would imply the invalidity of the
sentence--a position supported by Heck's extension in Edwards v.
Balisok,
520 U.S. 641 (1997), to cover disciplinary determinations
that affect the length of a sentence.
There is some division of views as to whether the Heck
and Edwards bar applies after release of the prisoner, when habeas
is no longer available. But Toolin does not argue this point and
1
Toolin is currently incarcerated, apparently for an unrelated
case.
-2-
we see no reason to address it since, in any event, the complaint
does not allege deprivation of a constitutional right. The
materials that Toolin has himself submitted show that the credits
sought were discretionary and, in the absence of a specific
unconstitutional motive, there is no due process violation. Cf.
Olsen v. Correiro, 189 F.3d 52, 66 n.16 (1st Cir. 1999) (noting
that, to prevail in § 1983 suit, plaintiff must establish that
defendants deprived him of constitutional right).
The judgment of the district court is summarily affirmed
on this alternative basis. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).
-3-
