FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 19 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

JULIUS LESLIE STEWART, 

Plain ti ff-Appellant, 

V. 

TIM LEMASTER, Warden, New 

Mexico State Penitentiary; CHET 

EDWARDS, Unit Manager, 

Penitentiary of New Mexico; CARLOS 

VALDEZ, Unit Manager, Penitentiary 

of New Mexico, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 04-2174 

(District of New Mexico) 

(D.C. No. CIV-04-507-MCA/WDS) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record, this court has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the 

*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of I 0th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-2174 Document: 010110642407 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 1
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). 

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant Julius Stewart, a state prisoner proceeding prose, filed a 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that Defendants violated his 

constitutional right to due process when they implemented disciplinary sanctions 

resulting in the termination of his ability to earn good time credits. Stewart 

sought both the restoration of good time credits and monetary damages. The 

district court dismissed Stewart's complaint without prejudice, concluding that an 

action seeking the restoration of good time credits must be brought under the 

habeas corpus statutes with exhaustion of state remedies required. See United 

States v. Furman, 112 F.3d 435,438 (10th Cir. 1997). The court further 

concluded that Stewart's claims for damages were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641,648 (1997). 

Stewart then filed the instant appeal together with a request to proceed in 

Jonna pauperis. In his appellate brief, Stewart does not address the grounds upon 

which the district court dismissed his complaint but, instead, presents arguments 

challenging his underlying conviction and sentence. Having reviewed the record, 

Stewart's appellate brief, and the applicable law, we conclude that the dismissal 

of Stewart's § 1983 complaint was proper. Accordingly, the district court's order 

dismissing Stewart's complaint without prejudice is affirmed for substantially 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-2174 Document: 010110642407 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 2
the reasons stated by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order 

dated June 30, 2004. Stewart's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

Stewart is reminded that he remains obligated to continue making partial 

payments until his appellate filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U .S.C. § 191 S(b ). 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Michael R. Murphy 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-2174 Document: 010110642407 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 3
Appellate Case: 04-2174 Document: 010110642407 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 4