FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOVEMB ER 28, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11740 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 6 1 8 8 5 - C V- KA M C H A R L E S E . M C B R I D E , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S E C R E T A R Y F O R T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 28, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C h a r le s M c B r id e , ap r o s e p r is o n e r , ap p e a ls th e s u as p o n te d is m is s a l,2

pu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(e) (2)( B )( i i ), of hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on for f ai l ure t o s t a t e ac l a i m upon w hi c h r e l i e f m a ybe gr ant e d. M c B r i de f i l e d thi s § 1983 a c tio n a lle g in g s e v e r a l v io la tio n s o f th e U .S . C o n s titu tio n s te m m in g f r o m h is c r im in a l c o n v ic tio n b y aju ry o f o n lyf iv e m e m b e r s a n d s e e k in g d a m a g e s th e r e f o r . T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt h e ld in H e c kv . H u m p h r e yth a t: I n or de rt o r e c ove rda m a ge s f ora l l e ge dl yunc ons t i tut i ona l c onvi c t i on o r i m p ri so n m en t , o r fo r o th er h arm cau sed b y act i o n s w h o se unl a w f ul ne s s w oul d r e nde rac onvi c t i on ors e nt e nc e i nva l i d, a§ 1983 pl ai nt i ff m ustprov e thatthe conv i ct i on or se nt ence has bee n revers ed o n d i rectap p eal , ex p u n g ed b y ex ecu t i v e o rd er, d ecl ared i n v al i d b y a s ta te tr ib u n a l au th o r iz e d to m a k e s u c h d e te rm in a tio n , o rc a lle d in to que s t i on by af

e de r a l c ourt ' s i s s ua nc e of aw r i tof habe a s c orpus , 28 U . S . C . § 2254. 512 U . S . 477, 486- 87 ( 1994) . I f thi s type of

§ 1983 a c t i on i s br oughtbe f or e the c h a lle n g e d c o n v ic tio n o rs e n te n c e is in v a lid a te d , it m u s t b e d is m is s e d . I d . a t 4 8 7 . T hu s, “ the di stri ctcourtm ustconsi der w hether aj ud gm enti n favor of the pl ai nt i ff w oul d ne c e s s a r i l y i m pl y the i nva l i di tyof hi s c onvi c t i on ors e nt e nc e ; i f i tw oul d, the c om pl a i ntm us tbe di s m i s s e d unl e s s the pl a i nt i f f c a n de m ons tr a t e tha tthe c o n v ic tio n o rs e n te n c e h a s a lr e a d yb e e n in v a lid a te d .” I d . I n th is c a s e , a ll o f

M c B r id e 's c la im s s te m f r o m th e c e n tr a l a lle g a tio n th a t h is c r i m i na l tr i a l w a s unc ons t i tut i ona l be c aus e the r e w e r e onl yf i ve m e m be r s of

the j ury pa ne l i ns t e a d of

s i x. I n or de rt o rul e i n f a vorof M c B r i de on hi s § 1983 cl ai m s, th erefo re, w e m u std et erm i n e th ath i s tri al w as u n co n st i tu t i o n al . B ecau se3

thi s de t e rm i na t i on w oul d ne c e s s a r i l yr e nde rhi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e i nva l i d, and b ec ause M cB ri de has notprov en thathi s c on vi ct i on or se nt ence has bee n r e v e r s e d o n d ir e c t ap p e a l, e x p u n g e d b ye x e c u tiv e o r d e r , d e c la r e d in v a lidb yas ta te tri bu nal autho ri ze d t o m ake s uch d et erm i nat i on , or ca l l ed i nt o q uest i on by a f eder al court ' s i ss uance of a w ri tof habeas corpus, the com pl ai ntm ustbe di sm i ss ed pur s ua ntt o H e c k. A FFI R M ED