FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 7, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 87 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cv -2 02 80 -CM A GUILLERMO SANCHEZ SALAZA R, lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, D.E.A., F.B.I., U.S. COAST GUARD, U.S. CUSTOMS, etal., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 7, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Gui ll erm o S al azar , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l

of hi s co m pl ai ntass ert in g acla im

un de r Bive ns v. Si

x Unk no wn Na med

Agen ts of Fed. Bur ea u o

f Na rc ot ic s , 40 3 U.S. 3 88 , 91 S.Ct . 19 99 , 29 L.Ed.2d61 9 (1 97 1) . On ap pe al , Sal azararg ue s tha t the go ve rn m en t wi th he ldex cu lp at ory ev id en ce fro m hi m . For t he reas on s s etforth be lo w, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l of Sal azar ’s com

pl ai nt . I. Ina 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 c om pl ai ntfil edag ai ns t a n um be r of go ve rn m en t ag en ci es , th ree As si st an t Un it edSta te s At to rn ey s, thr ee As si st an t Fe de ral Publ ic Defen de rs , andanin ve st ig at or , Sal azarall eg edth atth e g ov ern m en t i nt en ti on al ly an d m al ic io us ly fail edto pro vi de di sc ov ery an d e xc ul pa to ry ev id en ce re ga rd in g a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t. Sal azarfurth er al le ge d t ha t the go ve rn m en t m ay ha ve en trapp edhi m . The en trapm en t an d l ackof d is co ve ry ledto anun co ns ti tu ti on al se nt en ce. Fi na ll y , he a ss ert edth at , if h e co ul d o bt ai n t he withh el d e vi de nc e, he wou ldbe ab le to sh ow tha t h e rec ei ve d i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l. Sal azar de m an de d d is co ve ry , an i nv es ti ga ti ve rep ort, an in ve st ig at io n o f th e n ew ev id en ce, m on ey da m ag es forth e d am ag e an d p reju di ce h e su ffer ed , anda jury tria l u nd er th e Sev en th Am en dm en t. Sal azarwas p erm it te d t o p ro ceed in fo rma pa up er is . The m ag is tra te jud ge 2rev ie wedSal azar ’s com pl ai ntun de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (ii ) an d reco m m en de d t ha t the co m

pl ai ntbe di sm is se d fo r fai li ng to st at e a cl ai m . The m ag is tra te co ns tru edth e co m pl ai ntas a Bive ns act io n a ndco nc lu de d tha t Sa la zar was att em

pt in g t o c ol la te ral ly atta ckhi s cr im in al co nv ic ti on . Clai m s at ta ck in g

“ th e fac t o r du rat io n o f a cri m in al de fen da nt ’s con fin em en t” were t o b e b ro ug htin a p et it io n fo r habe as co rp us , no t i n aciv il rig ht s ac ti on . Whe n apri so ne r br ou gh t a cl ai m att ack in g h is co nf

in em en t i n aciv il rig ht s ac ti on , th e co m pl ai ntha d t o b e di sm is se d u nl es s the co nv ic ti on was re ve rs ed , exp un ge d, o r qu es ti on edina writof habe as co rp us . After de no vo rev ie w, th e d is tri ctco urt ac cep te d the rep ort an d reco m m en da ti on an d d is m is se d t he co m pl ai ntforfai lure t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f co ul d b e g ran te d. II. W e rev ie w “ a d is mis sa l fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m un de r [2 8 U.S.C.] § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (ii ) de no vo .” Tr ov il le v. Venz , 30 3 F .3d12 56 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Whe n apl ai nt iff

pro ceed s in fo rma pa up er is , “ th e co urt s ha ll di sm is s the cas e atan y

ti m e if th e co urt d et erm in es th atth e act io n o r ap pe al fai ls to st at e a cl ai m on whi chrel ie f m ay

be gra nt ed .” 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (ii ). Becaus e th is lan gu ag e tr ack s the lan gu ag e in Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ), we ap pl y th e st an dard s o f Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) inrev ie win g § 19 15 (e)( 2) (B)( ii ) di sm is sa ls . 3Mit ch el l v. Fa rc as s , 11 2 F .3d14 83 , 14 90 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). In r ev ie win g a

di sm is sa l fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m , we con st ru e “ th e co m pl ai ntinth e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e p la in ti ff an d a ccep t[s ] as tru e al l fa ct s wh ic h t he pl ai nt iff all eg es .” Dayv. Ta yl or , 40 0 F .3d12 72 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (rev ie win g adi sm is sa l u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(6 )). A complai ntsh ou ldbe di sm is se d o nl y wher e “ th e p la in ti ff can pr ov e n o s etof f

act s i n s up po rt o f hi s cl ai m whi chwou lden ti tl e h im to rel ie f.” Id. (quo tati onom it te d) . A pl ai nt iff

ass ert s a Bive ns cla im

when he all eg es th at“ fed eral off ic ers , act in g und er co lo r of

fed eral law,” a ct edun co ns ti tu ti on al ly. Abe lla v . Rub in o , 63 F.3 d 1 06 3, 1 06 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) (qu ot at io n o mitte d) . A Bive ns act io n i s an al og ou s t o c om

pl ai nt s b ro ug htag ai ns t s ta te act or s u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 , and co urts ge ne ral ly app ly § 19 83 law i n Bive ns act io ns . Id. In a§ 1 98 3 s ui t, the Supr em e Co urt h el d th at , inord er t o re co ve r da m ag es forall eg ed ly unc on st itut io na l co nv ic ti on or i m

pr is on m en t, o r fo r ot he r ha rm cau se d b y

act io ns who se un la wfu ln es s wo ul d re nd er a co nv ic ti onor s en te nc e in va li d, a § 1 98 3 p la in ti ff m

us t p ro ve th atth e co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e h as be en rev ers edon di rectap pe al , exp un ge d b y ex ecu ti ve ord er, d ecl ared in va li d b y

a st at e tr ib un al au th or iz edto m ak e su chde te rm in at io n, o r cal le d i nt o que st io n b y

a fed eral co urt's is su an ce o f a wri t o f habe as co rp us , 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Heck v . Hump hr ey , 51 2 U.S. 4 77 , 48 6- 87 , 11 4 S .Ct. 2 36 4, 2 37 2, 1 29 L.Ed.2d38 3

4(1 99 4) . Und er thi s ru le , if “ a jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e p la in ti ff wo ul d n eces sa ril y im pl y th e in va li di ty of hi s co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e,” the co m pl ai ntis to be di sm is se d u nl es s “ th e co nv ic ti onor s en te nc e h as alr eady be enin va li da te d.” Id. at 48 7, 1 14 S.Ct . at 2 37 2. Onth e o th er h an d, i f jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e p la in ti ff

“ wil l no t de m on st rat e th e in va li di ty of an y ou ts tand in g c riminal jud gm en t,” t he act io n m ay

pro ceed . Id. Heck

ap pl ie s t o Bive ns cla im s. Abe ll a , 63 F.3dat 1 06 5. The Supr em e Co urt h as no te d t ha t a Bra dyv. Mar ylan d , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 3 S.Ct . 11 94 , 10 L.Ed.2d21 5 (1 96 3) , cla im can no t b e b ro ug htina § 1 98 3 s ui t. Skin ne r v. S

wi tz er , 56 2 U.S. _

__ , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 28 9, 1 30 0, 1 79 L.Ed.2d23 3 (2 01 1) . To p ro ve a Bra dycla im , a pe ti ti on er m us t s ho w: (1 ) th atth e st at e supp res se d ev id en ce (2 ) th atwas favo rab le to th e p et it io ne r an d (3 ) th atth e p et it io ne r was pr ejud ic ed . Skin ne r , 56 2 U.S. at__ _, 1 31 S.Ct . at 1 30 0. Su chev id en ce ne ces sa ril y

un de rm in es th e p et it io ne r’s co nv ic ti on be cau se th e “ ev id en ce i s, b y de fin it io n, al way s fa vo rab le to th e d efen da ntan d m at eri al to hi s g ui ltor pu ni sh m en t.” Id. Thu s, Bra dycla im s ar e to be bro ug htina pe ti ti on forhabe as co rp us , no t i n a§ 1 98 3 s ui t. Id . Inco nt ras t, a p ris on er m ay see k p hysic al ev id en ce t o t es t the ev id en ce fo r DNA th ro ug h a§ 1 98 3 s ui t b ecau se su cces s o n the pl ai nt iff’s part wo ul d n otsh ow th athi s co nv ic ti onor s en te nc e was in va li d. Skin ne r , 56 2 U.S. at__ _, 1 31 S.Ct . at 512 93 ; Bra dl ey v. Pr yo r , 30 5 F .3d12 87 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Rathe r, jud gm en t in th e p la in ti ff’s fav orwou ldm erel y gi ve hi m acce ss to th e ev id en ce. Skin ne r , 56 2 U.S. at__

_, 1 31 S.Ct . at 1 29 3; Bra dl ey , 30 5 F .3dat 1 29 0. Th e ev id en ce ob ta in ed“ m ay

pro ve ex cu lp at ory , in cu lp at ory , or i nc on cl us iv e,” b utsi m pl y ob ta in in g a cces s t o t ha t ev id en ce wo ul d “ [i]n n o e ve nt. . . ne ces sa ril y im pl [y ] th e un la wfu ln es s o f th e [s ]tate ’s cus to dy.” Skin ne r , 56 2 U.S. at__ _, 1 31 S.Ct . at 1 29 3 (quo tati onom it te d) . Here, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d S al azar ’s com pl ai nt . Suc ces s o n

1 Sal azar ’s part wo ul d n eces sa ril y im pl y th athi s co nv ic ti on was i nv al id . Se e Heck, 51 2 a t 4 87 , 11 4 S .Ct. at23 72 . In h is co m pl ai nt , Sal azarass ert edth e es se nt ia l el em en ts of a Bra dycla im : h e as se rte d t ha t the pro se cu ti on in te nt io na ll y an d m al ic io us ly w ithh el d e xc ul pa to ry ev id en ce fr om

hi m , whi chpre

jud ic edhi m . Se e Skin ne r , 56 2 U.S. at__

_, 1 31 S.Ct . at 1 30 0. Th is ex cu lp at ory ev id en ce wo ul d ne ces sa ril y

un de rm in e h is co nv ic ti on . Se e S ki nn er , 56 2 U.S. at__

_, 1 31 S.Ct . at 13 00 . Accor di ng ly, Sal azarfai le d t o s tate a cl ai m co gn iz ab le ina Bive ns act io n. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f Sal azar ’s com

pl ai nt .

The district cour

t was also cor

rec t that Salazar has ac tually asser ted a Bivens claim, not a 1 § 1983 claim, bec ause Salazar sued fe dera l, not state, officia ls. See A bella , 63 F.3d at 1065. 6AFFIRMED.

7