FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 25, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT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- 14 25 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 9- cv -0 00 76 -SPM -WCS ALAN BOYD CURTIS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, JAM ES ARTHUR HELLICKSON, Ass is ta ntSta te Pro se cu to r, RENE MARI BAVER, Ass is ta ntSta te Pro se cu to r, JOSEP H ANTHO NY BULONE, All eg edJu dg e, EDWARD JUDY, Dete ct iv e PSC O, et al ., 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 . UNITED STAT ES EMBASSY, etal., Defen da nt s.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 2 5, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Alan Bo y d C urti s, p ro ceed in g pr o s e an d in fo rma pa up er is , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s su a s

po nt e di sm is sa l o f hi s co m pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f co ul d b e g ran te d u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 19 15 (e)( 2) (B)( ii ). Curti s’s co m pl ai ntari se s o utof c riminal co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es th atori gi na ll y vi ol at ed th e te rm s o f anex tra di ti onag reem en t b etweenth e Uni te d S ta te s an d S pa in . The di stric t co urt d is m is se d C urti s’s co m pl ai nt , bu t thi s co urt v acat edan d rem an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co nc ern in g C urti s’s s en te nc es an d t he ex tra di ti on ag reem en t. Cu rt is v. Uni te d Sta tes , 37 6 F . App ’x 90 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . Cu rti s the n fi le d a n a m en de d c om pl ai ntag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s, Pi ne ll as Co un ty, Fl or id a, an d the in di vi du al de fen da nt s. Inth is co m pl ai nt , Curti s al le ge d fr au d i n th e in du cem en t an d b reac h o f co nt ractinco nn ect io n wi th hi s ex tra di ti on fro m Sp ai n; bre ach of t he co ve nantof g oo d fa it h; co ns pi racy; RICO v io la ti on s ar is in g fro m th e act io ns of t wo p riv at e d efen da nt s; cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t i n 2co nn ect io n wi th th e co nd it io ns of h is im pr is on m en t; an d fa ls e im

pr is on m en t ari si ng fro m

hi s s ei zure i n F ran ce. The m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d t ha t the co m pl ai ntbe di sm is se d fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (ii ). Fir st , th e m ag is tra te jud ge fou ndth atbe cau se Curti s h adbe en res en te nc edto de te rm in at e te rm s, the re was no vi ol at io n o f th e ex tra di ti on ag reem en t an d t hu s C urti s’s cl ai m s b as edon th e al le ge d v io la ti onwere m oo t. The m ag is tra te jud ge th enfou ndth atsu cces s o n t he rem ai nd er o f Cu rti s’s cl ai m s wou ldne ces saril y

in va li da te Curti s’s co nv ic ti on s. Acco rd in gl y , su chcla im s wer e ba rredby Heck v . Hump hr ey , 51 2 U.S. 4 77 (19 94 ). Mo reo ve r, th e m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d tha t the in di vi du al jud ge s an d s ta te pro se cu to rs were i m m un e fro m su it . Fin al ly, with re sp ectto th e cl ai m s ch al le ng in g t he co nd it io ns of co nf in em en t, the m ag is tra te jud ge fou ndth atth e p ro pe r way to rai se su chcla im s was ina 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 a ct io n i n the ap pr op ria te ve nu e. The di stric t co urt ad op te d t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort, ov er Cu rti s’s 1 ob jecti on s t o t he co urt’s jur is di ct io n, an d d is m is se d t he co m pl ai ntun de r § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (ii ). Curti s n ow ap pe al s. On ap pe al , Curti s ar gu es th athi s co m pl ai ntwas i m

pr op erl y di sm is se d, se rv ic e o f pr oc es s was no t g iv en , rel ie f m ay st il l b e g ran te d fo r frau du le nt This was the mag istrate judg e’s se cond report and re commendation. 1 3in du cem en t, an d d is m is si ng th e cas e fo r m oo tn es s wo ul d a ll ow the go ve rn m en t t o

be ne fitfro m

it s wro ng do in gs . He als o c on te nd s tha t i m m un it y is im pr op er be cau se th e d efen da nt s’ act io ns were t ak eninba d fa it h, the de fen da nt s en ga ge d i n of fic ia l m is co nduc t, an d t ha t o urpri orho ld in g i n t hi s ca se onhi s fi rs t ap pe al ba rs th e ap pl ic at io n o f Heck to hi s cl ai m s. Ad di ti on al ly, hi s ex tra di ti on an d t he 2 co nn ect edcri m in al cas es su ffer edfro m nu m ero us subs ta nt iv e is su es an d juri sd ic ti on al de fect s. Fi na ll y , th e d efen da nt s en ga ge d i n aco ns pi racy tha t co ns ti tu te d s ta te act io n a ndres ul te d i n a§ 1 98 3 v io la ti on . The Pri so n Li ti ga ti on Refo rm Act p ro vi de s tha t an in fo rma pa up er is act io n orap pe al sh al l b e d is m is se d a t an y ti m e if th e co urt d et erm in es th atitfai ls to st at e a cl ai m forwhi chrel ie f m ay

be gra nt ed . 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (ii ). A di st ric t co urt’s su a s

po nt e di sm is sa l fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m pu rs uantto § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (ii ) is rev ie wed de no vo , vi ewin g t he all eg at io ns inth e co m pl ai nt as tru e. Mit ch el l v. Fa rc as s , 11 2 F .3d14 83 , 14 90 (11 thCir . 19 97 ). “ Pro se pl ead in gs are h el d t o ales s s tri ng en t s ta nd ardth anpl ead in gs dra fte d b y att orne y s an d wi ll , th eref

or e, be li be ral ly con st ru ed .” Ta nn en ba um v. Un it ed Stat es , 14 8 F.3 d 1 26 2, 1 26 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) .

Hec k v. H

umphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 2 4“ Dis m is sa l of a m oo t cas e is requi red be cau se m oo tn e s s i s ju ris di ct io na l.”

Si erra Cl ub v. U.S. E.P.A. , 3 1 5 F .3d 12 95 , 1 29 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ). “ A c as e is m oo t if no cas e o r c o n tro ve rs y ex is ts fo r us to res ol ve : whe n th e is su es pr es en te d are no lo ng er ‘liv e’ or th e pa rti es la ck a le ga ll y co gn iz ab le in te res t in th e ou tc om e.” Beki er v. Beki er , 24 8 F.3d 10 51 , 10 54 (1 1t h Cir. 20 01 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . In co ns id eri ng whe th er a cas e is m oo t, we “ lo ok at th e ev en ts at th e pr es en t ti m e, no t at th e ti m e th e co m

pl ai nt was fil ed or whe n th e fed eral or de r on rev ie w was is su ed .” DowJo nes & Co . v. Kay e , 25 6 F .3d12 51 , 12 54 (11 thCir . 20 01 ). Und er Heck , a pr is on er m ay no t b rin g adam ag es cla im ch al le ng in g t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y

of o ffi ci al s’ act io ns if ajud gm en t i n h is fav or“wou ldne ces 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,” u nl es s h e sh ows th athi s co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e h as alr eady be enin va li da te d. 5 12 U.S. at 4 87 . “ [E]ven whe n the pl ai nt iff

do es no t s eeksu chda m ag es , hi s s ui t m ay be ba rredif, fo r ex am pl e, he m us t n eg at e anele m en t o f th e o ffen se of wh ic h h e h as be enco nv ic te d in ord er t o p rev ai l.” Hughes v. Lo tt , 35 0 F .3d11 57 , 11 60 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (in te rn al cit at io n a ndpu nc tu at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Inth is cas e, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly dis mis se d C urti s’s am en de d c om

pl ai nt . Firs t, Cu rti s h as ab an do ne d h is cla im s fo r RIC O vi ol at io ns ,

5cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t, an d fa ls e im pr is on m en t b y

fai li ng to rai se th em

in hi s ap pe ll at e b rie f. Irwi n v . Hawk , 40 F.3d34 7, 3 47 n.1 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). Cu rti s’s cl ai m s p rem is edon th e b reac h o f th e ex tra di ti on ag reem en t wer e m oo te d b y

th e res en te nc in g. Cu rti s was res en te nc edto co ns ecu ti ve term s o f 30 y ears , 25 y ears , and25 y ears . Thu s, h is sen te nc e n o l on ge r vi ol at es th e ex tra di ti on ag reem en t an d a ny brea chha s b een cured . Alth ou gh Curti s ar gu es th atrem ed ie s are s ti ll av ai labl e, rem ed ie s i n c on tra ctlaw ar e in te nd edto pu t the no n- br each in g pa rty in a s g oo d apo si ti onas h e wou ldha ve be eninha d t he co nt ractbe en pe rfo rm ed . Se e Res ta te m en t (S eco nd ) of Co nt ract s, § 34 4 c m

t. a. Bu t wh enCurti s was res en te nc edin20 10 , th e p ot en ti al bre ach was e li m in at edbe fo re i t was ful ly effe ct iv e, an d C urti s d idno t s uf fer a ny cog ni zab le harm . Accor di ng ly, th ere i s n o co nt in ui ng cas e o r co nt ro ve rs y an d C urti s’s cl ai m

of b reac h i s n ow m oo t. Se e Beki er , 24 8 F .3dat 1 05 4. Cu rti s’s re m ai ni ng cla im s al le ge th atth e cri m in al sen te nc es were i nv al id be cau se th ere was a la ckof ju ris di ct io n, the ex tra di ti on was i m pr op er, an d t he de fen da nt s co ns pi redto un la wfu ll y ex tra di te , con vi ct , andsen te nc e h im . Each o f th es e arg um en ts “ wou ldne ces sa ril y im pl y th e in va li di ty of hi s co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce,” a ndhi s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es ha ve no t b een in va li da te d. Heck, 51 2 U.S. at48 7. As a res ul t, Cu rti s’s re m ai ni ng cla im s ar e Heck -b arre d. Cu rti s 6co nt en ds th at res j udic at a ba rs th e ap pl ic at io n o f Heck , bu t we ex pr es sl y he ldth at an y cla im s t ha t wo ul d h av e g on e d ire ct ly to the va li di ty of Cu rti s’s s en te nc e wou ld be ba rredby Heck . Cu rt is , 37 6 F . App ’x at 9 04 n.2 . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f Cu rti s’s co m pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f can be grant ed . AFFIRMED.

7