FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 16, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 14 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 27 53 -CAM LORENZO T . CRITTEN, l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SALLY YAT ES, Uni te d S ta te s At to rn ey , MIC HAEL E . HANCOCK, Ju dg e, RICHAR D REED, BOB HOUMAN, GAYLE D . BACON, Att orne y , et al ., l Defen dant s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 1 6, 2 01 0)Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Lore nz o C rit te n p ro se app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 c om

pl ai ntpu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5A( b) (1 ) fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm . Cri tt enis a Geo rg iast at e p ris on er wh o was co nv ic te d o f two co un ts of m ur de r. Cri tt en ’s pro se § 19 83 co m pl ai ntall eg edco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns ag ai ns t va rio us pa rti es in vo lv edin hi s 2 00 2 a rres t an d p ro se cu ti on , in cl ud in g p ol ic e of fic ers , th e supe rio r co urt ju dg e, th e supe rio r co urt cl erkan d t he co un ty dis tri ct at to rn ey . Cri tt en ’s com

pl ai ntall eg edth at : (1 ) he was u nl awfu ll y search edan d 1 se iz ed“ witho uta warra ntor arrai gn m en t b y lo cal off ic ers ”; (2) he was n ot pr om pt ly bro ug htbe fo re a m ag is tra te jud ge to be in fo rm edof t he ch arg es ag ai ns t hi m ; (3 ) th e co urt cl erkan d d is tri ctatt orne y di d n otpro vi de hi m

with aco py of h is in di ct m en t; (4) hi s d efen se co un se l co ns pi redwith t he pro se cu ti on to co erce hi m to pl eadgu il ty; an d (5 ) th e d efen da nt s co m m it te d fr au d b y

no t d is cl os in g i n the st at e cri m in al pro ceed in gs Cri tt en ’s st atus as a“ Secu redPart y Cred it or ,” whi ch

Critten’s complaint also named the n-United States Attorne y David Na

hmias, althoug h it 1 did not alleg e how Na

hmias could have participa ted in any alleg ed violation of Critten’s constitutional rights duringhis state court c riminal prosec ution. 2Cri tt enco nt en de d m ad e h is cri m es “ co m m erci al .” 2 Inacco rd an ce wi th 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5A, the di stric t co urt co nduc te d asu a sp on te pre li m in ary sc reen in g a nddi sm is se d C rit te n’s co m pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . The d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t Cr it te n’s § 19 83 cla im s wer e b arre d b y Heckv. Hu m

ph rey, 51 2 U.S. 4 77 , 11 4 S . Ct. 2 36 4 (1 99 4) , bec au se th ey ne ces sa ril y

im pl ie d t he in va li di ty of hi s s ta te co nv ic ti on s. As to Cri tt en ’s st atus as a “ se curedparty cred it or ,” th e d is tri ctco urt n ot edth atth e co m pl ai ntest ab li sh ed th atCri tt ento okhi s s ecu rity in te res t i n h im se lf i n Oct ob er 2 00 8, s ix y ears aft er h is arre stan d thu s was no t a s ecu redpa rty at th e ti m e o f hi s s ta te co urt cr im in al pr oc eed in gs . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d C rit te n’s re qu es t fo r anord er d ire ct in g t he supe rio r co urt t o p ro vi de hi m with aco py of h is in di ct m en t b ecau se itdi d n otha ve th e au th or it y

to is su e a wri t o f m an da m us ag ai ns t a s ta te off

ic ia l. Cri tt enap pe al ed . Und er § 19 15 A, th e d is tri ctco urt s ha ll rev ie w, as s oo n a s p os si bl e, a pr is on er’s co m

pl ai ntin a ci vi l ac ti on ag ai ns t a g ov ern m en t en ti ty. 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5A( a). The di st ric t co urt the n m us t d is m is s t he co m

pl ai ntif i t i s “ fri vo lo us , m al ic io us , or fa il s t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f m ay

be grant ed .” 28 U.S.C.

Critten attache d to his complaint a UCC financingstatement, date d October 20, 2008, 2 that purports to show that Critten is a commerc ial entity with a sec urity

interest in his own name and per son. 3§ 1 91 5A( b) (1 ). 3

A di sm is sa l u nd er § 19 15 A(b )(1 ) is go ve rn edby the same sta nd ard s as a di sm is sa l u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ). See J on es v. Bo ck , 54 9 U.S. 19 9, 2 15 -1 6, 1 27 S. Ct. 9 10 , 92 1 (2 00 7) ; Lea l v . Ga. Dep’t o f Co rrs ., 25 4 F.3 d 1 27 6, 1 27 8- 79 (11 thCir . 20 01 ). Thatis , alt ho ug h t he co m pl ai ntne edno t pr ov id e d et ai le d fa ctua l al le ga ti on s, i t m us t co nt ai n “ su ffi ci en t fa ctua l m at te r” t o st at e a cl ai m

th atis “pl au si bl e o n i ts face .” Ash cro ft v . Iqb al , __ _ U.S. _

__ , 12 9 S . Ct . 19 37 , 19 49 (20 09 ); a cco rdBel l At l. Co rp . v. Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 55 5, 57 0, 1 27 S. Ct. 1 95 5, 1 96 5, 1 97 4 (2 00 7) . Here, the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Cr it te n’s § 19 83 cla im s wer e b arre d by Heck. Und er Heck , a § 1 98 3 p la in ti ff i s b arre d fr om reco ve rin g m on ey da m ag es foranall eg ed ly unc on st itut io na l co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e u nl es s the co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e h as alr eady be en“ rev ers edon di rectap pe al , exp un ge d b y ex ecu ti ve ord er, d ecl aredin va li d b y a st at e tr ib un al au th or iz edto m ak e su ch de te rm in at io n, o r cal le d i nt o que st io n b y a fed eral co urt’s i ss ua nc e o f a wri t o f habe as co rp us .” 51 2 U.S. at48 6- 87 , 11 4 S . Ct. at13 72 . If a jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e p la in ti ff “ wou ldne ces sa ril y im pl y th e in va li di ty of hi s co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e,”
We reviewde novo a district c ourt dismissal for failure to state a c laim under 3 § 1915A(b)( 1), takingthe alleg ations in the complaint as true. B ox er Xv. Har ris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006). 4th enth e § 19 83 co m pl ai nt“ m us t b e d is m is se d u nl es s the pl ai nt iff cande m on st rat e th atth e co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e h as alr eady be enin va li da te d.” Id. The ba se s fo r Cri tt en ’s all eg edco ns ti tu ti on al cla im s ar e th athi s m ur de r co nv ic ti on s wer e th e res ul t o f im pr op er co ll us io n am on g t he att orne y s, the gra nd jury, th e p ol ic e, an d t he jud ge ; t ha t h e was th e v ic ti m of p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t; an d t ha t h e was co erce d i nt o p le ad in g g ui lt y . A j ud gm en t i n fa vo r of Cri tt enon an y of t he se cla im s wo ul d n eces sa ril y cal l i nt o que st io n the va li di ty of hi s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e, an d, t he refo re, t o a ss erta cl ai m form on ey

da m ag es , Cri tt enwas re qu ire d t o s ho w th athi s m ur de r co nv ic ti on s h adalr eady be en in va li da te d. As Cri tt enfai le d t o a ll eg e th athi s co nv ic ti on s o r se nt en ce h adbe en in va li da te d, h is § 1 98 3 c la im s fo r m on ey dam ag es are n otco gn iz ab le , andth e di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d t he m . W it h re ga rdto Cri tt en ’s dem an d t ha t h e b e rel eas edfro m pri so n, t hi s i s n ot anav ai labl e rem edy

in a § 1 98 3 c iv il rig ht s ac ti on . See Pre is er v . Rod rig ue z, 41 1 U.S. 47 5, 5 00 , 93 S. Ct. 1 82 7, 1 84 1 (1 97 3) . Rath er, a h ab eas co rp us act io n i s t he so le m ean s b y

whi ch Cri tt encanch al le ng e th e fac t o r du rat io n o f hi s co nf in em en t. Id . Eve n c on st ru edli be ral ly, Cri tt en ’s cla im th atst at e p ro se cu to rs fai le d t o di sc lo se to th e st at e co urt t ha t i t was de al in g wi th a co m m erci al en ti ty doe s n ot 5al le ge a co gn iz ab le § 1 98 3 c la im . Crit te n i de nt ifi es no fed eral rig htof wh ic h h e

was de pr iv edby the st at e’s al le ge d n on -d is cl os ur e. See Ho lm es v. Cr os by, 418 F.3 d 1 25 6, 1 25 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (ex pl ai ni ng th atto est ab li sha § 1 98 3 c la im , a pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w, in te r al ia , a vi ol at io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al or f ed eral st atut ory rig ht ). Fi na ll y , as fo r Cri tt en ’s reque stth atth e d is tri ctco urt co m pe l t he supe rio r co urt cl erkto pro vi de hi m with aco py of h is st at e co urt i nd ic tm en t, we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t i t d idno t h av e th e p owe r to gra ntth e reque st edrel ie f. See 28 U.S.C. § 1 36 1 (l im it in g adi st ric t co urt’s m an da m us juri sd ic ti onto co m

pe ll in g

“ anoff ic er o r em

pl oyee of th e Uni te d S ta te s o r an y

ag en cy th ereo f to pe rfo rm

a du ty owedto th e p la in ti ff”) ; Lam ar v . 11 8th J ud ic ia l Di st . Ct., 4 40 F.2d38 3, 3 84 (5 th Cir . 19 71 ) (co nc lu di ng th atfed eral co urts ha ve no ge ne ral po wer t o i ss ue writ s o f m an da m

us to co m pe l s ta te jud ic ia l o ffi cers to pe rfo rm th ei r du ti es ). 4 Cri tt enha s n otid en ti fie d a ny oth er i ss ue of f ed eral law s uf

fic ie ntto all ow a fed eral co urt t o i nv ok e it s ju ris di ct io n a ndco m pe l t he supe rio r co urt cl erkto act io n. Fo r al l the se reas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f Cri tt en ’s
Dec isions of the former

Fifth Circuit hande d down on or be fore September 30, 1981 a re 4 binding pr ece dent in the Eleve nth Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba

nc). 6co m

pl ai ntpu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5A( b) (1 ). AFFIRMED.

7