### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 30760 Summary Calendar

GLENN CALVIN DAMOND

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. JAMES LEBLANC; CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE; DIVISION OF PAROLE; PATRICIA MURPHY; VERNESTER CANTY; STEVE RADER; SHERYLE M. RANATZA

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:12

- CV

- 564

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Calvin Damond appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims of federal and state civil rights violations against Secretary James Leblanc, parole officers Patricia Murphy and Vernester Canty, Warden Steve Rader,
and Parole Board Chairman Sheryle Ranatza (collectively, “the defendants”)

. We AFFIRM the district court’s decision

.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 16, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-30760 Document: 00512502995 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2014No. 13

- 30760
STATEMENT OF FACTS In March of 1998, Calvin Damond pled guilty to aggravated rape and was sentenced to thirty years of imprisonment. Pursuant to an agreement between Damond and the Department of Corrections that h e would waive his incentive wages while in custody, Damond received the standard legislatively authorized good

- time credit at a rate of 30 days for every 30 days in actual custody. In July of 2011, Damond became eligible for good

- time release, but

was req uired to sign a document imposing supervisory conditions on his release. In June of 2012, Damond was re

- arrested in connection with an unrelated offense and the Parole Board placed a hold on his record because this signaled a possibl e violation of his con ditions. Damond filed a pro se suit in the district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law civil rights claims seeking relief from any form of “supervision and illegal custody.” Damond claimed that the defendants had wrongly applied Louisiana Revised Statute § 15:571.5 to his conviction. The defendants moved to dismiss the case. The district court granted the motion to dismiss as to all defendants on July 8, 2013

. Damond appeals. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“ We review a district court's dismissa l under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo,

‘ accepting all well

- pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light

mos t favorable to the plaintiffs. ’ ” Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist. ex rel. Keys , 675 F.3d 849, 854 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal citation omitted )

.

“ To survive dismissal pursuant to Rule 1 2(b)(6), plaintiffs must plead ‘ enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. ’ ” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) ). DISCUSSION Official capacity monetary damage claims against state actors are considered a suit against the state and barred by the Eleventh Amendment. 2 Case: 13-30760 Document: 00512502995 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2014No. 13

- 30760 Hafer v. Melo , 502 U.S. 21, 25

- 26 (1991) (“Suits against state officials in their official capacity therefore shoul d be treated as suits against the State.”). The district court properly dismissed Damond’s official capacity monetary damage claims against the defendants. “When a prisoner

. . . is released because of diminution of sentence . . .
he shall be released as if released on parole.” La. R ev

. S tat

. § 15:571.5. This release includes 1) the imposition of conditions, 2) supervision for the remainder of the term, and 3) potential revocation and recommitment. Id

. “[H ]abeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for stat e prisoners attacking the validity of the fact or length of their confinement,” not an ordinary civil rights action. Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973). Challenges to supervised conditions of release under Louisiana’s good

- time statute are construed as challenges to the length of confinement. See Edge v. Stalder , 240 F.3d 1074 (5th Cir. 2000) (unpublished)

. As such, “[h]abeas petitions are the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration o f his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of § 1983.” Id . (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). The district court properly dismissed Damond’s claims attacking the fac t of his supervised release. A prisoner’s claim seeking monetary damages under § 1983 is not cognizable whenever a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 48 7 (1994). Since Damond has not successfully shown his conviction or sentence invalid, the district court properly dismissed t his claim as unripe. The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims since it had dism issed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It was well within its power to do so.

3 Case: 13-30760 Document: 00512502995 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/16/2014No. 13

- 30760
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRME D

4 Case: 13-30760 Document: 00512502995 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/16/2014