Court Opinion

ID: 9409877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 19:01:42.905295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.036541
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10946    Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 07/19/2023   Page: 1 of 9

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10946
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       TIMOTHY SNEED,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       MARK S. INCH,
       Secretary Florida Department of Corrections,
       L. SANTANA,
       Bureau of Sentencing Specialist,
       DOUG WIENER,
       Chief of State Investigations,
       STACEY HAYNES,
       Inspector General,
USCA11 Case: 22-10946     Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 07/19/2023    Page: 2 of 9

       2                     Opinion of the Court                 22-10946

                                                    Defendants-Appellees,

       OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, et al.,

                                                              Defendants.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-00534-AW-MJF
                          ____________________

       Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Timothy Sneed, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
       the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C.
       § 1983 complaint. Mr. Sneed named as defendants several Florida
       Department of Corrections officials and alleged that they violated
       his constitutional rights by failing to properly credit him for time
       served. He also raised a state-law claim for false imprisonment.
       The district court determined that his federal claims were barred
       by Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), and Heck v. Humphrey,
       512 U.S. 477 (1994), and declined to exercise jurisdiction over his
       state-law claim. Because we agree with the district court that a
       § 1983 action is not the proper vehicle for Mr. Sneed’s claims for
USCA11 Case: 22-10946      Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 07/19/2023     Page: 3 of 9

       22-10946               Opinion of the Court                         3

       equitable relief and because, to the extent he seeks monetary dam-
       ages, granting him relief would necessarily lessen his sentence, we
       affirm.
                                         I
              Mr. Sneed originally was convicted of second-degree mur-
       der and sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment for the shooting death
       of Cory Thompkins. See Sneed v. State, 876 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Fla.
       3d DCA 2004) (“Sneed I”). The Third District reversed and re-
       manded for a new trial, see id. at 1238, but in 2006 he again was
       found guilty and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment. At that
       time, his written sentence reflected an award of 465 days credit for
       time served. See Sneed v. State, 99 So. 3d 514, 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
       (mem) (“Sneed II”).
               In the meantime, in April of 2009, Mr. Sneed filed a motion
       under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) to correct his sentence, arguing that
       he was entitled to 2,746 days credit for time served prior to his 2006
       resentencing. The trial court granted his motion in part and in
       March of 2010 entered a corrected sentence awarding him credit
       for 1,265 days of time served. He moved for rehearing and clarifi-
       cation, asserting that this total was incorrect and that he was enti-
       tled to an additional 1,481 days of credit. The trial court summarily
       denied him relief but the Third District reversed and remanded for
       a determination of the proper amount of credit for time served. See
       Sneed II, 99 So. 3d at 514-15.
              In August of 2011 the trial court entered a corrected sen-
       tence for Mr. Sneed. It stated that he was “ENTITLED TO AN
USCA11 Case: 22-10946      Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 07/19/2023     Page: 4 of 9

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-10946

       ADDITIONAL TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND
       ONE (2701) DAYS” credit for time served. See D.E. 14-1 at 9 (Exh.
       C). Based on this order, the Department of Corrections credited
       Mr. Sneed 2,701 days for timed served and calculated his tentative
       release date as December 30, 2026.
               Upon belief that he was entitled to the 1,265 days credited in
       March of 2010 and the so-called “additional” 2,701 days credited in
       August of 2011, Mr. Sneed filed several grievances. According to
       Mr. Sneed, the DOC had effectively rescinded the initial award of
       1,265 days’ credit, which the subsequent August 2011 award of
       credits had not explicitly “nullif[ied].” The DOC denied his griev-
       ances and, in response, Mr. Sneed filed multiple actions across the
       Florida courts. In affirming the denial of one such action, the Third
       District issued an order stating that Mr. Sneed “was not awarded
       an additional credit of 2,701 days for time served. The trial court
       recalculated the number of days served and awarded the defendant
       a total (both location time and state time) of 2,701 days.” Sneed v.
       State, No. 3D11-2822 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 5, 2012) (Miscellaneous Or-
       der (OR999)) (“Sneed III”). Mr. Sneed then filed a petition for writ
       of mandamus, which the state circuit court denied because the re-
       lief he requested “contradict[ed] the Third District’s order.” Sneed
       v. Dep’t of Corr., No. 2012-CA-001587, D.E. 23 at 9 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Aug.
       1, 2013). The First District affirmed.
             Mr. Sneed then filed this pro se § 1983 action. In his amended
       complaint, he alleged that the DOC deprived him of due process
       when it “rescinded” the March 2010 award of 1,265 days’ credit for
USCA11 Case: 22-10946      Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 07/19/2023     Page: 5 of 9

       22-10946               Opinion of the Court                          5

       time served without a hearing. In turn, he claimed that the addi-
       tional, unwarranted term of imprisonment constituted false impris-
       onment in violation of the Fourth Amendment, cruel and unusual
       punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and double
       jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He also raised a
       non-specific supervisory liability claim and a state-law claim for
       false imprisonment. As to redress, he requested (1) declaratory re-
       lief in the form of ordering the DOC to hold a hearing to determine
       its authority to rescind the March 2010 award “without a valid
       court order to do so” and, in turn, the constitutionality of his con-
       finement under the sentence as imposed, and (2) monetary dam-
       ages.
               A magistrate judge issued a report, recommending that the
       district court dismiss without prejudice Mr. Sneed’s amended com-
       plaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to
       state a claim. The magistrate judge concluded that Mr. Sneed’s
       claims for equitable relief challenged the fact or duration of his con-
       finement and, thus, were properly raised only in a habeas corpus
       petition. As to his claims for monetary damages, they were Heck-
       barred because granting him relief would necessarily imply the in-
       validity of his sentence. And without a free-standing federal claim,
       the district court should decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction
       over his state-law claim. The district court adopted the report over
       objection and dismissed Mr. Sneed’s amended complaint without
       prejudice. This appeal followed.
USCA11 Case: 22-10946       Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 07/19/2023      Page: 6 of 9

       6                       Opinion of the Court                   22-10946

                                          II
              We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for
       failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Hughes v. Lott,
       350 F.3d 1157, 1160-61 (11th Cir. 2003).
              Our resolution of Mr. Sneed’s claims for equitable relief is
       straightforward. Under Preiser, 411 U.S. at 494, “a prisoner seeking
       injunctive relief which lessens the period of confinement must
       bring the claim in a habeas corpus petition.” Gwin v. Snow, 870 F.2d
       616, 621 (11th Cir. 1989). Here, Mr. Sneed requests a hearing with
       the ultimate goal of availing himself of an additional 1,265 days of
       credit for time served. That is, he seeks to lessen his 30-year sen-
       tence (minus 2,701 days) by another 1,265 days. This he cannot do
       through a § 1983 action. To acquire the equitable relief he desires,
       Mr. Sneed must proceed under habeas corpus. See id.
               On appeal, Mr. Sneed appears to argue that his equitable
       claims circumvent Preiser because he seeks to prevent a prospective
       harm. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555 (1974) (holding that
       Preiser does not “preclude a litigant with standing from obtaining
       by way of ancillary relief an otherwise proper injunction enjoining
       the prospective enforcement of invalid prison regulations”). See
       also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (stating that pro se fil-
       ings are “to be liberally construed”). Specifically, he argues that he
       is under an ongoing threat of danger of contracting the COVID-19
       virus based on the DOC’s inadequate treatment protocols and pro-
       longed by its recission of the March 2010 credit award. But our
       inquiry is concerned with the particular relief Mr. Sneed requested.
USCA11 Case: 22-10946      Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 07/19/2023     Page: 7 of 9

       22-10946               Opinion of the Court                          7

       See Gwin, 870 F.2d at 621. And focusing on that relief, Mr. Sneed is
       not attempting to enjoin the DOC’s medical protocols, but rather
       is asking us to reduce his chances of contracting an illness while
       incarcerated by ordering the DOC to give him an additional 1,265
       days’ credit for time served. His attenuated argument cannot dis-
       tract us from this point—that what he seeks in his complaint is a
       lesser sentence. See United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d 76, 77-78 (5th
       Cir. 1990) (claims challenging the denial of credits against a custo-
       dial sentence “must be addressed as habeas corpus petitions under
       28 U.S.C. § 2241”).
               We now turn to Mr. Sneed’s claims for money damages,
       which the district court dismissed as Heck-barred. Heck bars a state
       prisoner’s suit seeking damages under § 1983 when success “would
       necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” 512
       U.S. at 487. That is, there must be a “necessary logical connection
       between a successful § 1983 suit and the negation of the underlying
       [sentence].” Dyer v. Lee, 488 F.3d 876, 880 (11th Cir. 2007). Indeed,
       if speedier release would automatically flow from success on a
       § 1983 claim, the Heck bar generally applies. See Harrigan v. Metro
       Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1193 (11th Cir. 2020).
       See also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (stating that a
       § 1983 action is barred if success in that action would necessarily
       spell immediate or speedier release of the prisoner). And if Heck
       applies, dismissal is mandated unless the prisoner can show that the
       related criminal judgment has been invalidated. See Henley v. Payne,
       945 F.3d 1320, 1327 (11th Cir. 2019).
USCA11 Case: 22-10946      Document: 39-1       Date Filed: 07/19/2023      Page: 8 of 9

       8                       Opinion of the Court                   22-10946

              Mr. Sneed’s claims all have the same problem: if we grant
       him relief on any claim, it means that the “rescission” of the March
       2010 award of credit was unconstitutional. For all of his claims—
       whether they arise under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth
       Amendments—the alleged injury stems from that “rescission.” He
       claims he is being unreasonably detained, denied sufficient process,
       and subjected to double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punish-
       ment because the defendants deprived him of an additional 1,265
       days’ credit for time served (notwithstanding the Third District’s
       order effectively condoning their actions, see Sneed III, OR999). Re-
       mediating that harm necessarily means lessening his sentence by
       1,265 days. Consequently, his claims fall squarely within those
       barred by Heck. See Harrigan, 977 F.3d at 1193.
               Additionally, the district court did not err in declining to ex-
       ercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Sneed’s state-law false
       imprisonment claim. Because the court lacked an independent ba-
       sis for original jurisdictional after dismissing his federal constitu-
       tional claims, it was justified in declining to exercise pendent juris-
       diction over his state-law claim at this early stage in the proceeding.
       See Baggett v. First Nat’l Bank of Gainesville, 117 F.3d 1342, 1352 (11th
       Cir. 1997). See also Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089
       (11th Cir. 2004) (“We have encouraged district courts to dismiss
       any remaining state claims when, as here, the federal claims have
       been dismissed prior to trial.”). Accordingly, dismissal was war-
       ranted.
USCA11 Case: 22-10946   Document: 39-1    Date Filed: 07/19/2023   Page: 9 of 9

       22-10946            Opinion of the Court                     9

                                    III
             The district court’s dismissal without prejudice of Mr.
       Sneed’s amended complaint is affirmed.
             AFFIRMED.