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 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 16, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-30760 Document: 00512502995 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2014
No. 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 he 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 required 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 possible violation of his conditions.

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 dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, 

‘accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light 

most 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 12(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: 01/16/2014
No. 13-30760

Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25-26 (1991) (“Suits against state officials in their 

official capacity therefore should 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. Rev. Stat. § 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 state 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 of 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 fact 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, 487 (1994). Since Damond has not successfully shown his conviction or 

sentence invalid, the district court properly dismissed this claim as unripe.

The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 

state law claims since it had dismissed 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: 01/16/2014
No. 13-30760

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

4

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