IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDWIN MALPICA GARCIA, :

:

Plaintiff :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 3:CV-15-2447

:

A. JORDAN, ET AL., : (Judge Brann)

:

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM

January 11, 2016

Background

Edwin Malpica Garcia, an inmate presently confined at the United States

Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (USP-Lewisburg), filed this pro se civil

rights action. Plaintiff has also submitted an in forma pauperis application. For the

reasons set forth below, Garcia’s action will be dismissed, without prejudice,

pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Named as Defendants are three USP-Lewisburg officials: Disciplinary

Hearing Officer (DHO) A. Jordan; Lieutenant Seeba; and SIS Tim Crawford. 

Plaintiff states that on April 30, 2015, he and three other inmates were directed to

provide urine samples to prison authorities. On May 11, 2015, Lieutenant Seeba

1

Case 4:15-cv-02447-MWB-JVW Document 7 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 5
issued a misconduct to Plaintiff based upon the results of urinalysis testing

performed on the samples previously provided by the prisoners. The disciplinary

charge allegedly claimed that Garcia had tested positive for phenobarbital and

barbiturates. After being found guilty of the misconduct, presumably by DHO

Jordan, Plaintiff was given sanctions including a 41 day loss of good conduct time. 

See Doc. 1, ¶ V(2). 

Plaintiff’s pending action challenges the legality of his misconduct

proceedings on the basis that prison officials fabricated the results of his urinalysis

testing. Specifically, Garcia maintains that any urine sample he provided should

have tested positive for THC because it is present in a medication which he was

prescribed during the relevant time period. Therefore, since Plaintiff’s urine sample

was tested for, but had a negative result for THC, the Complaint concludes that the

urinalysis results were invalid. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages

as well as injunctive relief primarily restoration of his forfeited good conduct time.

Discussion 

When considering a complaint accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, a district court may rule that process should not issue if the complaint is

malicious, presents an indisputably meritless legal theory, or is predicated on clearly

baseless factual contentions. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989);

2

Case 4:15-cv-02447-MWB-JVW Document 7 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 5
Douris v. Middleton Township, 293 Fed. Appx. 130, 132 (3d Cir. 2008). 

Indisputably meritless legal theories are those "in which either it is readily apparent

that the plaintiff's complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or that the defendants are

clearly entitled to immunity from suit ... ." Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d

Cir. 1990) (quoting Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894 F.2d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 1990)).

Injunctive Relief

Inmates challenging the duration of their confinement or seeking earlier or

speedier release must assert such claims in a properly filed habeas corpus petition. 

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1975), Telford v. Hepting, 980 F.2d 745, 748

(3d Cir.), cert. denied 510 U.S. 920 (1993). Federal habeas corpus review is the

appropriate remedy when “the deprivation of rights is such that it necessarily

impacts the fact or length of detention.” Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d

Cir. 2002). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Woodall v. Federal Bureau of

Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005), reiterated that federal habeas corpus

review allows a prisoner “to challenge the ‘execution’ of his sentence.”

Plaintiff clearly acknowledges that the challenged misconduct charge resulted

in the forfeiture of 41 days of good conduct time and as such has negatively affected

the duration of his ongoing federal sentence. Accordingly, to the extent that Garcia

is seeking restoration of his forfeited good conduct time, such a request for

3

Case 4:15-cv-02447-MWB-JVW Document 7 Filed 01/11/16 Page 3 of 5
injunctive relief is not properly asserted in a civil rights complaint under the

standards announced in Preiser and Leamer. See generally Georgevich v. Strauss,

772 F.2d 1078, 1086 (3d Cir. 1985) (civil rights claims seeking release from

confinement sound in habeas corpus). Likewise, a civil rights claim for declaratory

relief “based on allegations ... that necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment

imposed, is not cognizable” in a civil rights action. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S.

641, 646 (1997). Garcia’s claim for injunctive relief will be dismissed without

prejudice to any right Plaintiff may have to pursue such arguments via a federal

habeas corpus petition.

Monetary Damages

With respect to Garcia’s claim for monetary damages, Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477 (1994) recognized that a constitutional cause of action for damages does

not accrue "for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other

harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence

invalid", until the Plaintiff proves that the "conviction or sentence has been reversed

on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal

authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Id. at 486-87. There is no assertion in the

Complaint that the USP-Lewisburg disciplinary charge and proceedings which are

4

Case 4:15-cv-02447-MWB-JVW Document 7 Filed 01/11/16 Page 4 of 5
being challenged in this action have been rendered invalid.

Based on the nature of Garcia’s allegations, a finding in his favor would imply

the invalidity and/or comprise the USP-Lewisburg disciplinary proceedings at issue

herein. Thus, any request by Plaintiff for monetary damages with respect to the

legality of his institutional misconduct charge is premature because Garcia cannot

maintain a cause of action for unlawful imprisonment until the basis for that

imprisonment is rendered invalid. See Gibson v. Superintendent, 411 F.3d 427, 449

(3d Cir. 2005); Sanchez v. Gonzalez, No. 05-2552, 2005 WL 2007008 *2 (D.N.J.

Aug. 16, 2005). Any request by Garcia for compensatory damages is premature and

 must be deferred under Gibson and Sanchez until his underlying disciplinary

proceeding is rendered invalid. 

Consequently, if Plaintiff is able to successfully challenge his USP-Lewisburg

misconduct hearing via either a habeas corpus petition or an administrative appeal,

under Heck, he may then reassert a claim for damages in a properly filed civil rights

complaint. An appropriate Order will enter.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

5

Case 4:15-cv-02447-MWB-JVW Document 7 Filed 01/11/16 Page 5 of 5