IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30521

Summary Calendar

WILLIAM A. MUSE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, OUACHITA PARISH; ROYCE TONEY; JAY

RUSSELL; DAVID HARRIS; BRIAN NEWCOMER; LIEUTENANT STEWART;

CORPORAL JENKINS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:09-CV-2230

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

William A. Muse, Louisiana prisoner # 502435, moves for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Muse’s motion is

a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in

good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Muse has

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 21, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-30521 Document: 00511328840 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2010
No. 10-30521

also filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief. His motion to file a

supplemental brief is GRANTED.

On appeal, Muse reiterates that he was improperly placed in

administrative lockdown and that his disciplinary conviction should be

dismissed. He challenges the validity of his disciplinary conviction and argues

that he was falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, illegally searched, and

maliciously prosecuted. He seeks injunctive and declaratory relief as well as

monetary damages and the restoration of his good time credits. Muse also

contends that prison officials retaliated against him for filing grievances by

placing him in administrative lockdown on another occasion. He further

challenges the conditions of his confinement while in lockdown, arguing that his

Eighth Amendment rights were violated.

Muse’s challenges regarding his disciplinary conviction call into question

the validity of the prison disciplinary proceeding; therefore, these claims were

barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) because Muse failed

to show that the disciplinary conviction had been reversed or expunged. See

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48 (1997). Additionally, Muse’s challenge

to the loss of good time credits fails because he cannot recover in a § 1983 action

the good time credits forfeited in his disciplinary proceeding. See Clarke v.

Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc). To the extent that Muse

argues that his due process rights were violated by being placed in

administrative lockdown, the claim is frivolous. See Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192,

193 (5th Cir. 1995). The dismissal of the above claims is AFFIRMED.

However, because an inmate is not required to demonstrate a favorable

outcome of a disciplinary case if, as here, he is alleging a retaliation claim, the

district court abused its discretion in dismissing any such claim as barred by

Heck. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164-66 (5th Cir. 1995). The district

court also failed to address Muse’s Eighth Amendment challenge to the

conditions of confinement. This claim would also not be barred by Heck.

2

Case: 10-30521 Document: 00511328840 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2010
No. 10-30521

In light of the foregoing, the district court’s certification that Muse’s

motion to proceed IFP on appeal was not taken in good faith was erroneous.

Whether the facts ultimately establish a retaliation claim or an Eighth

Amendment violation are not questions to be answered at this stage of the

proceedings. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). The district

court’s dismissals of the retaliation claim and Eighth Amendment claim are

VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

Appellant’s motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED.

3

Case: 10-30521 Document: 00511328840 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2010