Dible v. Scholl
| Decision Date | 24 January 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. C05-4089-MWB.,C05-4089-MWB. |
| Citation | 410 F.Supp.2d 807 |
| Parties | William S. DIBLE, Plaintiff, v. Steve SCHOLL and Gary O. Maynard, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
William S. Dible, Sioux City, IA, pro se.
Forrest Arthur Guddall, Department of Justice, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION REGARDING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND .........................................809
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ..............................................................810
A. Rule 12(b)(6) Standards .................................................810
B. Arguments of the Parties ................................................811
1. The defendants' arguments for dismissal .............................811
2. Dible's argument in resistance to the defendants' motion to
dismiss ............................................................812
C. Applicable Precedent And Relevant Case Law ...............................812
1. Preiser v. Rodriguez .................................................813
2. Heck v. Humphrey .....................................................814
3. Edwards v. Balisok ...................................................817
4. Spencer v. Kemna .....................................................818
5. Lower court applications of the favorable termination requirement
after Spencer ......................................................820
a. Section 1983 claim not allowed ...................................820
b. Section 1983 claim allowed .......................................822
6. This court's determination ...........................................823
D. Application ..............................................................826
III. CONCLUSION ...................................................................828
In order to ensure the protection of an individual right, more than mere enumeration of that right is required. Without also a means of redress, an individual right becomes illusory due to the inability to enforce that right. This controversy brings before the court an issue of first impression within the Eighth Circuit — namely whether the unavailability of a remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal habeas corpus statute, permits a former state prisoner to maintain an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1 even though success in such an action would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence. Specifically, in this case, the court confronts the question of whether a former state prisoner — who is precluded from pursuing a habeas claim — can maintain an action for damages as a result of alleged due process violations that occurred during a prison disciplinary proceeding under § 1983 or whether his rights are nothing more than a mirage — appearing to exist at first glance, but transforming into an illusion upon careful inspection due to the lack of a federal forum in which to enforce them.2 The defendants, taking the latter position, have filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's § 1983 action for failure to state a claim upon which any relief may be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff has resisted the defendants' motion, asserting he is entitled to pursue protection of his civil rights in a federal forum.
On July 22, 2003, while incarcerated at the Sioux City Residential Treatment Facility, William S. Dible ("Dible" or "Plaintiff") received notice that he had allegedly violated prison disciplinary rules. The disciplinary report issued by the prison disciplinary committee alleged Dible had assaulted and threatened a citizen of the State of Iowa. This report was based exclusively on confidential information. Therefore, the report excluded the victim's name and failed to identify the date or location in which the alleged assault transpired. Following a hearing, the prison disciplinary committee found Dible guilty of assaulting and threatening a citizen of the State of Iowa, in contravention of prison disciplinary rules. Subsequently, Dible's work release was revoked and he was assessed 60 days loss of good time credits. The loss of good time credits effectively operated to lengthen Dible's twenty-five year prison sentence by thirty days.
On July 13, 2005, Dible filed a complaint with this court alleging two due process violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 2).3 Specifically, the complaint avers that the disciplinary notice Dible received failed to comport with procedural due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, because it was "too vague." Dible contends the ambiguous nature of the report precluded him from preparing and presenting a meaningful defense during his prison disciplinary hearing. Notably, Dible's complaint does not seek restoration of the revoked good time credits; rather, Dible seeks relief solely in the form of monetary damages and legal costs. Shortly after filing his complaint, Dible discharged his sentence and was released from prison on August 31, 2005. On October 27, 2005, the defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which any relief may be granted (Doc. No. 7). The plaintiff filed a Resistance To Defendants' Motion To Dismiss on November 7, 2005 (Doc. No. 8). Neither party requested oral argument on the motion to dismiss. Therefore, the court deems the defendants' motion to dismiss as fully submitted on the parties' written submissions. Accordingly, this matter is ready for a determination by this court.
The issue on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence in support of his, her, or its claims. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), abrogated on other grounds by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); United States v. Aceto Agric. Chems. Corp., 872 F.2d 1373, 1376 (8th Cir.1989). In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must assume that all facts alleged by the complaining party are true, and must liberally construe those allegations. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Gross v. Weber, 186 F.3d 1089, 1090 (8th Cir.1999) (); St. Croix Waterway Ass'n v. Meyer, 178 F.3d 515, 519 (8th Cir.1999) (); Gordon v. Hansen, 168 F.3d 1109, 1113 (8th Cir.1999) (); Midwestern Mach., Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 167 F.3d 439, 441 (8th Cir.1999) (); Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank, 167 F.3d 402, 405 (8th Cir. 1999) () (citing Duffy v. Landberg, 133 F.3d 1120, 1122 (8th Cir.1998)); Doe v. Norwest Bank Minn., N.A., 107 F.3d 1297, 1303-04 (8th Cir.1997) () (quoting Coleman v. Watt, 40 F.3d 255, 258 (8th Cir.1994)); WMX Techs., Inc. v. Gasconade County, Mo., 105 F.3d 1195, 1198 (8th Cir.1997) ().
The court is mindful that, in treating the factual allegations of a complaint as true pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must "reject conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences." Silver v. H & R Block, Inc., 105 F.3d 394, 397 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing In re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir.1996)); see Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir.1990) () (citing Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir.1987), and 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357, at 595-97 (1969)); accord. LRL Props. v. Portage Metro Hous. Auth., 55 F.3d 1097, 1103 (6th Cir.1995) () (quoting Morgan, 829 F.2d at 12). Conclusory allegations need not and will not be taken as true; rather, the court will consider whether the facts alleged in the plaintiffs' complaint, accepted as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Silver, 105 F.3d at 397; Westcott, 901 F.2d at 1488.
The United States Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Domotor v. Wennet
...DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 1. Neither Wennet nor Haughwout filed a Reply. 2. Dible v. Scholl, 410 F.Supp.2d 807 (N.D.Iowa 2006), provides an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the legal landscape surrounding the Heck decision. It should be mention......
-
Heimlicher v. Steele
...motion to dismiss, the court must construe the complaint liberally and assume all factual allegations to be true."). Dible v. Scholl, 410 F.Supp.2d 807, 810 (N.D.Iowa 2006). Dr. Steele alternatively argues the court should exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction under o......
-
McNeal v. LeBlanc
...Without also a means of redress, an individual right becomes illusory due to the inability to enforce that right." Dible v. Scholl, 410 F. Supp. 2d 807, 808 (N.D. Iowa 2006). Applying Heck to those no longer incarcerated would render those rights, in Judge Bennet's words, "nothing more than......
-
Dible v. Scholl
...manner." Scholl and Maynard moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court denied their motion. Dible v. Scholl, 410 F.Supp.2d 807, 828 (N.D.Iowa 2006). Scholl and Maynard then moved for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity; Dible filed a cross-motion for sum......