FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 3, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DANA LYDELL SMITH,

Plaintiiff - Appellant, No. 09-4155

v. (D. Utah)

STATE OF IDAHO; GOVERNOR

STATE OF IDAHO; ATTORNEY

FOR GOVERNOR STATE OF

IDAHO; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF IDAHO; MINIDOKA

COUNTY, IDAHO, the Sheriff’s

Office and County Officials; MINICASSIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS, State

of Idaho; IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; MATT ELSON,

Detective, West Valley City Police

Department, Utah; JAMES WRIGHT,

Lieutenant, West Valley City Police

Department, Utah; RANDY WHITE,

Chief of Police, Rupert City, Idaho;

DAN PRICE, Owner/Investigator of

Payless Car Sales; DENNIS JAMES,

Owner/Investigator of Payless Car

sales; JASON D. WALKER,

Prosecuting Attorney, Minidoka

County, State of Idaho; NICOLE

CANON, Prosecuting Attorney,

Minidoka County, State of Idaho;

STAN HOLLOWAY, Prosecuting

Attorney, Minidoka County, State of

Idaho; MATILDA ORTIZ,

Presentence Investigator; RUPERT

CITY IDAHO MAYOR; JOSHUA

JOHNSTON,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 2:08-CV-00445-TC)

Appellate Case: 09-4155 Document: 01018360855 Date Filed: 02/03/2010 Page: 1
*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the 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. This order and judgment is

not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

-2-

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Dana Lydell Smith appeals the dismissal of his civil-rights claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States District Court for the District of Utah ruled

that Smith’s claim for damages must be dismissed under the doctrine set forth in

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); venue was improper in Utah; and the

complaint did not allege sufficient facts to justify injunctive relief. We affirm.

On appeal Mr. Smith does not argue that his claim can survive the Heck

doctrine. Instead, he asks us to reject the doctrine. For example, he states: “The

Question which is now asserted by this Appellant is Does the Ruling by the

Supreme Court Violate, the initial Foundation and statute by Dismissing the cases

Put before the Courts when an [sic] Prisoner is suing Parties for Damages and that

suit would Render the underlying conviction Moot.” Aplt. Br. at 10. The

conclusion of his brief states in part: “The Heck Bar and other case law which is

Appellate Case: 09-4155 Document: 01018360855 Date Filed: 02/03/2010 Page: 2
-3-

in direct contradiction to the Civil Rights Act must be changed to uphold the

integrity of the Constitution.” Id. at 15. Of course, we cannot overrule the

Supreme Court’s decision. We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling under

Heck.

To the extent that Mr. Smith’s claim for injunctive relief is not barred by

Heck, we AFFIRM the district court’s ruling dismissing that claim for

substantially the reasons set forth by the district court. We grant Mr. Smith’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and remind him to continue making

payments until all his fees are paid in full.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-4155 Document: 01018360855 Date Filed: 02/03/2010 Page: 3