* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, andlaw of the case. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 30 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BILLY DEAN HARMON,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 01-7098

v. (E.D. Oklahoma) DEBRA K. DAVIDSON, CourtReporter, and LORI SOKOLOSKYFAULKNER, Official Court Reporter

Defendants-Appellees. (D.C. No. 00-CV-556-S)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HENRY , BRISCOE , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for decis ion on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore subm itted without oral argument.-2-

Billy Dean Harmon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“ ifp ”) in the appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action. We conclude that Mr. Harmon’s § 1983 claims, if true, would implicate his conviction and sentenc e and must thus be first pursued via a habeas action. Because Mr. Harmon’s appeal fails to present a “reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and fac ts in support of the issues raised on appeal,” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan , 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991), we deny ifp status and dismiss this appeal. On February 9, 1999, an Oklahoma jury convicted Mr. Harmon of a criminal violation of Oklahoma law; the Oklahoma tr ial court entered a prison sentence. Mr. Harmon unsuccessfully appealed his c onviction and sentence to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Subsequently, Mr. Harmon filed a habeas corpus action “making an issue of the same ground o n which my [§] 1983 complaint is based.” Rec. (letter to the Clerk of Court, filed Nov. 5, 2001, at 2 (unpaginated)). That habeas petition is “pending.” Id. On October 13, 2000, Mr. Harmon filed this § 1983 a ction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of O klahoma. In the action, Mr. Harmon asserts that two court reporters deliberately falsified testimony in preparing the official transcripts of his Oklahoma criminal trial. Mr. Harmon asserts that the falsified transcripts undermined h is criminal appeal by preventing-3-

him from establishing that at least one trial witne ss, Officer Keith Shepard, offered perjured testimony. “The missing testimony. . . goes to the heart of my claim that my conviction was the result of a conspi racy between [the] police and the court.” Rec. vol. I, doc. 2, at 2 (Complaint, filed Oct. 13, 2000). Mr. Harmon sought “compensatory . . . and punitive damage awar ds totaling $500,000 for each civil rights violation.” Id. at 6 (unpaginated after page 4). The district court dismissed Mr. Harmon’s § 1983 ac tion. The district court noted that if Mr. Harmon were to establish the clai ms underlying his § 1983 action, he would establish grounds to vacate at lea st his sentence and possibly his conviction as well. Since the Supreme Court has di rected that in such circumstances a plaintiff-petitioner must pursue habeas relief before bringing a § 1983 action, the district court dismissed Mr. Harmon’s § 1983 action. See Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (“[W]hen a state prisone r seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of [the plaintiff’s] conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dis missed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has alr eady been invalidated.”). Given Mr. Harmon’s pro se status, we construe his c ontentions liberally. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam). Having reviewed Mr. Harmon’s appellate brief, the districtcourt’s order, and the-4-

appellate record, we conclude that the district cou rt correctly dismissed Mr. Harmon’s § 1983 action. Thus, for substantially th e same reasons set forth in the district court’s July 13, 2001 order, we DENY Mr. H armon’s request for leave to proceed ifp and DISMISS this appeal.

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge