[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14151

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cv-00753-HWM-JBT

CARLOS MOORE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JON S. WHEELER, 

Clerk of First District Court of Florida, 

THOMAS D. HALL, 

Clerk of Supreme Court of Florida, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, 

MARK W. MOSELEY, 

Cir Judge, 

RAY NORMAN, 

Clerk of Court 8th Jud. Cir., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(June 4, 2013)

Case: 12-14151 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before CARNES, BARKETT, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Carlos Moore, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s sua sponte dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), of his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 action against the State of Florida, the Florida Attorney General, 

and various persons in the Florida court system. Moore, who is serving a life 

sentence for a 1973 robbery conviction, alleged in his complaint that his conviction 

was improper under Florida law because of a defective charging affidavit, that he 

was convicted without sufficient evidence, that the state trial court lacked 

jurisdiction over his criminal case, that the length of his sentence was cruel and 

unusual punishment, and that he was denied meaningful access to the courts on 

appellate review of his criminal case because the trial court denied him access to 

the record of his criminal trial and sentencing, and the appellate courts ignored this 

issue. The district court concluded that Moore’s complaint failed to state a claim 

because Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 

(1994), barred all of his claims. We find no reversible error.

A state prisoner cannot bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for damages if a 

judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or 

sentence, unless that conviction or sentence has been invalidated already. Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487. The majority of Moore’s claims (all but the accessCase: 12-14151 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
3

to-courts claim) overtly challenged the validity of his conviction and sentence. 

Indeed, Moore requested immediate release from prison in addition to monetary 

damages. He did not allege that his conviction had been invalidated already. To 

the extent that he sought an order of release, he was directly challenging his 

conviction and his claim should have been brought in habeas. To the extent that 

he sought damages because he was charged in a defective affidavit, convicted 

without sufficient evidence, tried without jurisdiction, and given a sentence that 

was cruel and unusual, those claims indirectly challenge his conviction and 

sentence by requesting a judgment that necessarily implies the unlawfulness of his 

custody. Heck, 512 at 487, 114 S.Ct. at 1272. 

Likewise, Moore’s access-to-the-courts claim is barred by Heck. Moore 

argues that the state appellate courts would not have affirmed his conviction and 

sentence if the trial court had provided them with the record of his trial and 

sentencing. Thus, a judgment in Moore’s favor on his access-to-courts claim

would necessarily imply the invalidity of Moore’s conviction. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-14151 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 3 of 3