Court Opinion

ID: 2964262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:22:57.627245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:50.292529
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          September 3, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2225

                                  RASHID A. PIGOTT,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               ELIZABETH VEGA, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Rashid A. Pigott on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Scott   Harshbarger,  Attorney   General,  and  Ellyn   H.  Lazar,
            ___________________                             _________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Pro se plaintiff  Rashid Pigott appeals  a
                 __________    ___ __

            district court  order that  dismissed this 42  U.S.C.    1983

            action  as frivolous  under 28  U.S.C.    1915(d).   Pigott's

            complaint  sought  monetary   damages  and  declaratory   and

            injunctive relief on the grounds that the defendants violated

            his constitutional rights by falsifying the trial transcripts

            essential for Pigott's direct appeal and obstructing Pigott's

            efforts to correct those transcripts. 

                 We have thoroughly reviewed  the record and the parties'

            briefs  on appeal.  We  conclude that the  instant action was

            properly dismissed, although not  for the reasons relied upon

            by  the  district court.1    Rather,  we conclude  that  this
                                    1

            action   essentially  challenges  the  validity  of  Pigott's

            conviction  and  that  it  is therefore  barred  by  Heck  v.
                                                                 ____

            Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994)(holding   1983  damages suit
            ________

            for conduct  that would  necessarily imply the  invalidity of

            plaintiff's  criminal  conviction  is  not  cognizable unless

            plaintiff's   conviction  or   sentence   has  already   been

            invalidated).   Cf. Tedford v. Hepting, 990 F.2d 745, 749 (3d
                            ___ _______    _______

            Cir. 1993)(where    1983 plaintiff sought  a declaration that

            his constitutional rights on appeal were violated as a result

                                
            ____________________

               1The district court dismissed  this action for the reasons
               1
            stated  in the  defendants'  memorandum in  support of  their
            motion to dismiss.  That memorandum incorrectly asserted that
            Pigott's  claim that he was  deprived of his  right to appeal
            was  meritless  because  Pigott's   direct  appeal  was  then
            pending.   As  the defendants  have  waived this  argument on
            appeal, we do not rely on it.       

                                         -2-

            of  falsification  of transcripts,  Third  Circuit  held that

            plaintiff's  civil rights suit was "a direct challenge to the

            validity of  his conviction  and the legality  of plaintiff's

            confinement"); Scruggs v. Moellering,  870 F.2d 376, 378 (7th
                           _______    __________

            Cir.)(upholding  dismissal  of    1983  claim  for injunction

            requiring judge and court  reporter to provide accurate trial

            transcripts  on ground  suit was  an improper  use of    1983

            where plaintiff sought injunction solely to facilitate attack

            on his conviction), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 956 (1989); Wilcox
                                _____ ______                       ______

            v. Miller, 691 F.2d 739, 741 (5th Cir. 1982)(claim that trial
               ______

            transcript  was altered  to assure affirmance  of defendant's

            conviction on appeal "would seem to challenge the validity of

            his  conviction").    As  Pigott's conviction  has  not  been

            invalidated, his claims for relief are not cognizable under  

            1983.2
                 2

                 In addition to seeking  relief for the alleged violation

            of his  right  to a  direct appeal,  Pigott's complaint  also

            alleged  that  defendant  Leary violated  his  constitutional

            rights  by unjustifiably  delaying Pigott's  appeal  from the

            denial of  his motion for new  trial.  As this  claim has not

            been  developed on  appeal, we  deem it  waived.   See, e.g.,
                                                               ___  ____

            Barrett v.  United States, 965 F.2d  1184, 1194 & n.  19 (1st
            _______     _____________

                                
            ____________________

               2We note that Pigott presently has a federal habeas action
               2
            pending in the district  court and an appeal from  the denial
            of  his motion for a  new trial pending  in the Massachusetts
            Appeals Court.    Both actions  raise  the same  claims  that
            Pigott has asserted here.   

                                         -3-

            Cir. 1992)(issues  adverted to  in a perfunctory  fashion are

            deemed waived).3
                           3

                 In view of  the foregoing, the judgment  of the district

            court is  summarily affirmed,  see  Local Rule  27.1, but  we
                                ________   ___

            modify the  dismissal to be  without prejudice.   See Guzman-
                                         _______ _________    ___ _______

            Rivera v. Rivera-Cruz, 29 F.3d 3, 6 (1st Cir. 1994).      
            ______    ___________

                                
            ____________________

               3Pigott  also contends  that defendant Leary  maintained a
               3
            policy  of deliberate  indifference to  the rights of  pro se
                                                                   ___ __
            litigants  that resulted in the loss of his direct appeal and
            numerous violations of the rights of other pro se  prisoners.
                                                       ___ __
            To the extent Pigott seeks relief for the loss of his appeal,
            this  claim is  barred by  Heck.  Pigott  has no  standing to
                                       ____
            pursue claims on behalf of other prisoners.

                                         -4-