Court Opinion

ID: 9880831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 20:00:21.709802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:51.407911
License: Public Domain

CLD-209
                                                             NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                              ___________

                                  No. 23-2346
                                  ___________

                           DAVID T. YARBOROUGH,
                                         Appellant

                                        v.

            DETECTIVE MONROE HUDSON, DOC Commissioner;
                    ROBERT MAY, Warden-JTVCC;
               KATHLEEN JENNINGS, DE Attorney General
                ____________________________________

                 On Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Delaware
                     (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-22-cv-01573)
                  District Judge: Honorable Colm F. Connolly
                  ____________________________________

     Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
       Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                September 7, 2023
         Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

                       (Opinion filed: September 28, 2023)
                                        _________

                                        OPINION *
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Pro se Appellant David Yarborough, a prisoner at the James T. Vaughn

Correctional Center, was found guilty of several prison policy violations and was

disciplined with confinement to his quarters for 10 days, loss of privileges for 60 days,

and the loss of 90 days’ worth of good time credits. Twelve days after being found

guilty, Yarborough—who had yet to file an appeal—received notice that his appeal had

been denied. He filed a grievance appealing these disciplinary measures and his inability

to appeal them directly. He then filed a complaint in the District Court under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 arguing that these actions violated his due process rights. Yarborough does not

seek money damages, but rather an order mandating the reversal of the disciplinary action

and the restoration of his good time credits. Upon review under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(b), the District Court dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed.

       We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review

over a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). See Allah v. Seiverling,

229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We must dismiss the appeal if it is legally frivolous.

       *
        This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
does not constitute binding precedent.

                                             2
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We may take summary action when no substantial issue

is presented on appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

       To the extent Yarborough seeks restoration of good time credits, a § 1983

complaint is the wrong vehicle. The only way to obtain such relief in federal court is “by

writ of habeas corpus, with the concomitant requirement of exhausting state remedies.”

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554 (1974) (cleaned up).

       To the extent Yarborough seeks other relief, such as a declaration that the

disciplinary action was invalid, it is barred by Edwards v. Balisok because his prevailing

would “necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed.” See Edwards v.

Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994)).

       Accordingly, the District Court correctly dismissed the complaint, and we will

summarily affirm.

                                             3