FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT DECEMBER 6, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1633 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 80 92 6- CV-KLR GE ORG E M . MI LL ER , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us TRUEASIAL SANFORD, LT. JOSEPH, MAR GA RE T K OV ACS , R. P. TIFFT, JOHN DOE, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt for the Southern D istrict of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(D ec em be r 6, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: G eo rg e M. Mi lle r (“ Mi lle r” ), aF lor ida pr iso ne r pr oc ee din g pr o se , appe al s the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of Mi lle r’ s c ivi l r igh ts a ct ion
. W e se e no r ev er sib le
e rr o r i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’s o r d e r ; w e th e r e f o r e a f f i rm. Miller, a Florida prisoner held at G lades Correc tional Insti tutio n (“ GCI ”), fi le d ac om

pla int pur suant t o 42 U . S. C. § 19 83 a ga ins t se ve ra l G CI of fi ci al s, al le gi ng th e v io la ti on of M il le r’s Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t due pro ces s ri gh ts . Miller alleged that, in July2006 , a GC I offic er issued a disciplinary report that falsely stated that Miller had lied to the officer. T he com plaint further alleged that the prison d isciplin ary

team that found Mill er guilty

of disrespect to an official fa ile d to inv es tig at e the c harg e ad equa te ly , w as bia se d a ga ins t M ill er , and
com m itted oth er proce dural err ors. A s a result of this finding of disrespect, Miller
w as se nte nc ed

to 25 d ay s of

dis ci pli nary

c onf ine m en t and 6 0 day s’ los s of ga in tim e. Mi lle r al so a lle ge d th at the sup er vis or y of fi ci al s a t G CI a ct ed

w ithde lib er at e i n d i ff er en ce t o Mi l l er ’s du e p ro ce s s ri g h t s b y ap p ro v i n g th e d i s ci p l i n ary t ea m ’s finding and sentence and by deny ing Miller’ s grievances and appeals. Miller soug ht e xpun ge m en t of

the dis ci pli nary

r ep ort and m one tary

dam ag es . The m agistrate j udge recom m ended that Miller’ s com plaint be dis m issed pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 191 5(e)( 2)(b)(ii) for fa ilure to state a claim on which relief3

m ay be granted. The m agistrate determ ined that Miller’ s suit was barre d by He ck v. H um phry , 512 U. S. 477 (199 4), and Edwards v. Ba lisok , 520 U. S. 641 (199 7): Mi lle r’ s “ al le ga tio ns, if

tr ue , w oul d ne ce ssari ly

im ply the inv al idi ty

of the de pr ivatio n of

ga in t im e al le ge d inthe c om pla int , ” an d M ill er

ha d no t a lle ge d –
an d c ou ldno t p ro ve – t ha t t he pri so n d is ci pl in ary pr oc eed in g h adbe en in va li da te d. Af t erre v i ew i n g th e mag i s tra t e’s re p o rt an dre co m m en d at i o n an dMi l l er ’s obj ec tio ns the re to, the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed Mi lle r’ s c om

pla int
. Mi lle r now appeals, arguing th at H eck is inapplicable. W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s su a spon te dis m iss al of an inf orm a paupe ri s co m pla int f or f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im

de nov o, vie w ing the a lle ga tio ns i n th e co m pla int a s tr ue and c onstru ing the pr o se ple ad ing li be ra lly
. H ughe s v. L ott , 350 F.3 d 1 15 7, 1 15 9- 60 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). InH ec k, the S upr em e Co urt r ule d th at to r ec ove r dam ag es f

or an al le ge dly unc onst itu tio na l c onvi ct ionor im pr iso nm en t, or

f or oth er harm c au se d by

a ct ion s w hose unl aw fu lne ss w oul d r en de r a co nvi ct ionor se nte nc e inv al id, a42 U.S
. C. § 19 83 pla int if f m ust pr ove that the co nvi ct ionor se nte nc e ha s be enr ev er se d on dir ec t a ppe al , e xpun ge d by

e xe cu tiv e or der, de cl ar ed inv al id b y

astate tr ibuna l auth or iz ed

to m ak e suc h de te rm inatio n, or c al le d in to que sti on by af ed er al c ourt’ s is suanc e of awri t of ha be as c or pus.The Court su g g e ste d th at th e pr iso ne r h a d p ur po se fu lly str uc tur e d h is s e c tio n 1 98 3 a c tio n to 1 avoid application of Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973), in which the Court determined that the sole fe dera l remedy for a prisoner se eki n g re s t o ration of good- time cre dits was a wr it of habea s corpus. Edwa

rds, 520 at 643-44. 4 H ec k, 512 U . S. a t 48 6- 87. T hus, w he re “ a j udgm en t i n f av or of the pla int if

f w oul d
ne ce ssari ly

im ply the inv al idi ty

of his c onvi ct ionor

se nte nc e[ , ]
. . . the c om

pla int
m ust be dis m iss ed

unl es s th e pla int if

f can de m onstrate that the c onvi ct ionor s e n t e n c e h a s a l r e a dy b e e n i n v a l i d a t e d
. ” I d
. a t4 8 7 . I nE dw a r d s , th e S up r e me Co urt a ppl ie d H ec k to ase ct ion198 3 a ct ionin w hic h apr iso ne r al le ge d th at the pr oc ed ur es use d inhis dis ci pli nary pr oc ee din g vi olate d th e Fo urte en th Am endm ent. E dwar ds, 520 at 643-44
. The C ourt reached this conclusio n even tho ugh the pr iso ne r soug ht o nly de cl ar at or

y and m one tary

r el ie f an d di d no t re que st r es tor at ionof

the goo d- tim e cr ed its he ha d lo st a s ar es ult of the di sc ip li na ry

act io n. Id. at 64 3.

1 Mi lle r atte m

pts to dis tin gui sh h is c as e fr om H ec k and E dw ar ds b y co nte ndi ng tha t he is m er el y c ha lle ngi ng p ri son co ndi tio ns r athe r than hi s co nvi ct ionor

the le ngth of

his se nte nc e. B ut this arg um en t ov er loo ks tha t, if Mi lle r’ s a lle ga tio ns are tr ue , he w oul d be e nti tle d to have the m isc ondu ct f ind ing
reverse d and his g ain tim e re stored, which would result in a sho rter se ntence. See id. at 646. Miller ’ s suit is thus di sting uishabl e fr om the section 198 3 action atMiller also contends that, be cause the district court filinginstructions provided that the re quired 2 filing f ee f or his section 1983 complaint was $150, the district c ourt err ed in imposing a $350 lien on his prison acc ount to cover the fee
. But Miller did not object in district court to the amount of the fe e and

c ontin ue d to lit ig ate his su it a ft e r b e ingno tif ie d of the $3 50 fe e ; he ca

nn ot now pr op e rl y argue that the district c ourt err ed in a ssessing the fee
. See Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F .3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (notingthat “an issue not r aised in the district cour t and raised f or the fir st tim e in an a

ppeal will not be conside red by this court” (inter

nal quot ation marks and citation omitted). 5 iss ue in Je nki ns v . H au

be rt , 179 F . 3d 1 9 ( 2nd Ci r. 199 9) , on whic h M ill er r el ie s, be ca use the c ha lle nge in Je nki ns m er el y a ddr es se d th e co ndi tio ns – not the ove ra ll le ngth – o f the pr iso ne r’ s c onf ine m en t. S ee id. a t 27 ( co nc lud ing that H ec k di d no t ba r pr is on er’s s ect io n 1 98 3 a ct io n c ha ll en gi ng a te rm of d is ci pl in ary se gr eg at io n)
. Be ca use Mi lle r’ s se ct ion198 3 a ct ionne ce ssari ly im pli cate s th e va lid ity

of the duration o f his confinem ent, and Miller has not alleged th at the disciplin ary d ec i s i o n h as b ee n i n v al i d at ed , h i s ac t i o n i s b arre db y He ckan dEd wa rd s . We the re fo re a ff

irm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al
. 2 AFFIRMED.