FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 29, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10404 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -033 36 -C V -T W T -1 D A R R E L L J O E B E L L , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S T A T E O F G E O R G I A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( J une 29, 2005) B efo re C A RN E S , M A R C U S an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Da r r e l l J o e B e l l , a Ge o r g i a s t a t e p r i s o n e rp r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , f i l e d two512 U.S. 477, 114 S.C t. 2364, 129 L .Ed.2d 383 (1994) (holding th at a plaintiff cannot 1 re c ov e r damag e s f

or an alle g e dly

un c on sti tution a l c onvic tion if su cce ss o n th ec laim w ould invalidate a c onviction unle s s th e p l aintiff ca n show that the convic tion or sentencehas been reversed on dire ct appe al, expunged by executive order, dec lare d invalid by a state tribunal, or called into question by

a fe deral court’s issuanc e of a writ of habe as cor

pus). Acc ording to the district c ourt, Be ll f iled a state habe as petition, which wa s denied in 1999, 2 and the statesupreme c ourt denied a cer tificate of probable cause in 2000. Be ll then filed a sec ond state h a b e a s p e ti ti o n in 2 0 0 3 , wh ich w a s d e n ie d a s s u c c e s s iv e in 2 0 0 4 , an d th e r e qu e st for a cer tificate of probablecauseremained pendingin the state supreme cour t. 2 m ot i ons , one e nt i t l e d “ m ot i on f ore qui t a bl e r e l i e f

, ” a nd the othe re nt i t l e d “ m ot i on f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l,” c h a lle n g in g h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s f o rc h ild m o le s ta tio n , e n tic in g a c h ild , a n d b e in g a p e e p in g to m . I n th e s e m o tio n s , B e ll c l a i m e d, i nt e ra l i a , tha the r e c e i ve d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l a nd tha the w as actu al l y i n n o cen to f th e ch arg es t o w h i ch h e h ad p l ead ed g u i l ty. T he di s tr i c tc our tc onduc t e d the r e qui r e d s c r e e ni ng unde rthe P r i s on L i t i gat i on R ef

orm A ct(“ P L R A ”) , 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5A , no t i ng thatthe m ot i on s had been do cket ed as a 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on , bu tthatB el l soug htre l i ef thatw as approp ri at e i n a habeas pet i t i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4. T he courtthen con cl ud ed tha t( 1) i f

the m ot i ons w e r e tr e a t e d a s § 1983 c l a i m s , the y w e r e ba r r e d by H e c k v. H um ph re y because B el l had n otshow n t hathi s s t at e c on vi ct i on s had been

1 ov er turned, and (2) i f the cl ai m s w er e tre at ed as § 2 25 4 cl ai m s, the di stri ctcourt s h o u ld n o t r e v ie w th e m o tio n s b e c a u s e B e ll’s s ta te h a b e a s p e titio n w a s p e n d in g in the s t a t e s upr e m e c our t . F i na l l y , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha t , e ve n i f

the m ot i ons 23

w e r e c o n s tru e d u n d e r§ 2 2 5 4 , th e y w e r e u n tim e ly . W e r e vi e w f

r i vol i ty di s m i s s a l s unde r28 U . S . C . § 1915A de novo. H a r de n v. P a ta k i, 3 2 0 F .3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . S e c t i on 1915A of

the P L R A r e qui r e s the di s tr i c tc our tt o r e vi e w c i vi l a c t i ons and t o i dent i fy cogn i zabl e c l ai m s or di sm i ss the com pl ai ntor po rt i on s there of that ar e f ri vo l ou s. 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5A (b). A cl ai m i s f ri vo l ou s i f i ti s bas ed on an i ndi s put a bl y m e r i t l e s s l e ga l the or y or , a f t e rpi e r c i ng the ve i l of

the c om pl a i nt , the c our tde t e r m i ne s tha tthe f a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons a r e c l e a r l y ba s e l e s s . N e i t z ke v. W i l l i a m s , 490 U . S . 319, 327, 109 S . C t . 1827, 1833, 104 L . E d. 2d 338 ( 1989) ( ap p ly in g 2 8 U .S .C . 1 9 1 5 ( d ) ) ; s e e a ls o C a r r o ll v . G r o s s , 9 8 4 F .2 d 3 9 2 , 3 9 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . U p o n r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r ly d ism isse d th e m o ti o n s a s f riv o lo u s f

o r th e r ea so n s s tated in th e d istrict co u rt’s or de rda t e d D e c e m be r30, 2004. AF F I R ME D.