Clemente v. Allen
Decision Date | 25 June 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 97-1104,97-1104 |
Citation | 120 F.3d 703 |
Parties | Gerald W. CLEMENTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Troy ALLEN, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Gerald W. Clements (submitted), Terre Haute, IN, Pro Se Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before CUMMINGS, BAUER, and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Pro se litigant, Gerald W. Clemente, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the United States Prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, brought this action against the defendants under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). The district court dismissed the action without prejudice on the basis of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Clemente also filed an "order for mandamus" contending that his sentence had been miscalculated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Clemente's submission was construed as a request for habeas corpus relief and was denied because he had not alleged the exhaustion of his administrative remedies. Clemente then filed a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), see United States v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299, 300-01 (7th Cir.1992), which the district court also denied. Clemente appeals and we affirm.
Clemente pleaded guilty to federal racketeering charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1962. He had been recently convicted of a state bank burglary in Massachusetts, which was referenced in his federal plea agreement. The plea agreement reflected the parties' recommendation that the state and federal sentences run concurrently. However, the plea agreement clearly indicated that the sentence was within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge. The district court sentenced Clemente to 15 years' incarceration on the federal charge to run consecutively to the 30-to-40 year state sentence. Clemente believed that his sentences should run concurrently and argues that the Bureau of Prisons calculated his sentence improperly. Clemente filed this action seeking damages for the miscalculation of his sentence.
We first address Clemente's "order for mandamus" requesting immediate release from incarceration due to the Bureau of Prison's alleged miscalculation of his sentence. The district court considered Clemente's motion as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied relief. The district court based its decision on the precept that Clemente had not alleged the exhaustion of his administrative remedies. The court dismissed Clemente's "order for mandamus" without prejudice so that Clemente could renew his request to be released when his administrative remedies had been exhausted.
The district court properly considered Clemente's request as a petition for habeas corpus, as challenges to the computation of a sentence must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Carnine v. United States, 974 F.2d 924, 927 (7th Cir.1992). However, we review a claim concerning the computation of a sentence only after administrative remedies have been exhausted. Id. Reviewing the district court's legal conclusion de novo, Bocian v. Godinez, 101 F.3d 465, 468 (7th Cir.1996), we conclude that because Clemente failed to allege the exhaustion of his administrative remedies, denial of his petition was proper.
Addressing the Bivens claim, we conclude that the district court properly determined that Clemente's claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court ruled that in order to recover damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment or for "other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid," the prisoner must show that the sentence had been previously invalidated, i.e., "reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Id. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. at 2372.
Although there is no published Seventh Circuit case addressing whether Heck applies to Bivens actions, other circuits have held that the Heck rationale applies not only to § 1983 actions, but to Bivens actions as well. See, e.g., Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir.1996) ( ); Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (D.C.Cir.1996) ( ); Abella v. Rubino, 63 F.3d 1063, 1065 (11th Cir.1995) ( ); Tavarez v. Reno, 54 F.3d 109, 110 (2d Cir.1995) ( ); Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 27 (5th Cir.1994) ( ). We agree and will apply the Heck analysis to Clemente's Bivens action.
Clemente is challenging his sentence based on his understanding that the plea agreement required that his state and federal sentences should run concurrently. Granting Clemente's request would imply the invalidity of his sentence because he is challenging the duration of his confinement. See Rooding v. Peters, 92 F.3d 578, 580-81 (7th Cir.1996). However, because...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilson v. Braham
...Heck v. Humphrey, nature of relief sought is not critical question; rather, it is the grounds for relief); see also Clemente v. Allen, 120 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 1997)(injunctive relief sought); see also Mobley v. Tompkins, 473 F. App'x 337, 337 (4th Cir. 2012)(injunctive relief not available u......
-
Smith v. Walton, Case No. 14-cv-00514-JPG
...brought against state officials under . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983"); Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 386 (7th Cir. 2005); Clemente v. Allen, 120 F.3d 703, 705 (7th Cir. 1997) (collecting cases). 2. The Court dismissed the initial complaint (Doc. 1) on June 2, 2014, after determining that it cle......
-
Ford v. Bureau of Prisons
...transfer. 9. The Heck and Balisok rulings have been held applicable in Bivens proceedings as well as § 1983 actions. Clemente v. Allen, 120 F.3d 703, 705 (7th Cir. 1997). ...
-
Jenkins v. Wilson, C/A No. 5:15-cv-02873-RMG-KDW
...Heck v. Humphrey, nature of relief sought is not critical question; rather, it is the grounds for relief); see also Clemente v. Allen, 120 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 1997) (injunctive relief sought and barred by ...
-
Obstruction of justice.
...jury would not have the "natural and probable effect" of interfering with the due administration of justice). (20.) E.g., Muhammad, 120 F.3d at 703 (upholding obstruction conviction where defendant, juror in civil case, solicited bribe from litigant in that case in exchange for promise to s......