Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00097/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00097-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ammar Dean Halloum, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-97-PHX-RCB (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Ammar Dean Halloum, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex-Tucson, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a January 27, 2011 Order, the Court ordered

Defendants Huggins, Turner, Hernandez, Brier, Eherdt, Rhihibe, and Itenberg to answer

Counts I, III, IV, V, VI, and VII of the Complaint, and dismissed the remaining claims and

Defendants without prejudice. 

On February 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal

of Count VIII. The Court dismissed Count VIII as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 486-87 (1994). In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff states that he intended to

raise Count VIII as a retaliation claim and asks that the Court reconsider the claim as such.

Plaintiff also states in his Motion that “he was wrongfully denied of three months good time,

and three months early release credits in retaliation for filing several grievances and a ‘Notice

of Claim.’”

Case 2:11-cv-00097-JJT Document 8 Filed 02/14/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

A prisoner’s claim for damages cannot be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “a

judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or

sentence,” unless the prisoner demonstrates that the conviction or sentence has previously

been reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-

87 (1994). If judgment in favor Plaintiff would invalidate the deprivation of good time

credits, the claim is also barred under Heck. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648

(1997). Because Plaintiff’s claims in Count VIII directly relate to the deprivation of good

time credits, they are barred by Heck and must be dismissed. The Court finds no reason to

reconsider dismissal of this claim.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn with respect to Plaintiff’s

February 10, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 7); all other matters must remain with

the Magistrate Judge as appropriate.

(2) Plaintiff’s February 10, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 7) is denied.

DATED this 14th day of February, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00097-JJT Document 8 Filed 02/14/11 Page 2 of 2