Williams v. Hill
| Decision Date | 06 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-5119,95-5119 |
| Citation | 74 F.3d 1339,316 U.S.App. D.C. 78 |
| Parties | Robert L. WILLIAMS, Appellant v. Leo C. HILL, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Robert L. Williams, pro se.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney, R. Craig Lawrence and W. Mark Nebeker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, DC, were on the motion for summary affirmance, for appellees.
Before: SILBERMAN, GINSBURG, and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed PER CURIAM.
ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE
After Robert L. Williams was convicted of bank fraud and witness tampering, he sued the two prosecutors, a Secret Service agent, three of his court-appointed attorneys, the probation officer who apparently prepared his presentence report, the court reporter who prepared the transcripts of his trial, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of the Treasury. These individuals, Williams alleged in his pro se complaint, conspired to violate his Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights and committed criminal offenses. Charitably construed, Williams' complaint, as amended, stated a claim against the defendants in their official capacities for declaratory and injunctive relief; a claim for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), against the defendants in their individual capacities; and a claim for damages against the defendants in their official capacities. The district court dismissed the amended complaint.
Williams says he is not challenging his conviction but his amended complaint does exactly that. He alleges that there was an illegal conspiracy to convict him. Although he couches some allegations in terms of libel or as violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the mail and wire fraud statutes, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3), and his privacy interests under the Fourth Amendment, he does not claim any injury apart from the fact of his conviction, and he consistently characterizes the underlying events as acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy to convict him.
As to Williams' claim for injunctive and declaratory relief, it is well-settled that a prisoner seeking relief from his conviction or sentence may not bring such an action. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 808-10 (D.C.Cir.1988) (en banc).
As to Williams' claims under Bivens, these too are barred. Heck v. Humphrey, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), held that a criminal defendant may not recover damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for "harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render [his] conviction or sentence invalid" unless "the conviction or sentence has been 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." --- U.S. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2372. The rationale of Heck applies equally to claims against federal officials in Bivens actions. The "bodies of law relating to the two forms of litigation [42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Bivens ] have been assimilated in most ... respects." Doe v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong v. District of Columbia Public Library
...`have been assimilated in most ... respects.'" LaRouche v. Fowler, 152 F.3d 974, 987 (D.C.Cir.1998) (quoting Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (D.C.Cir.1996)). The circuit therefore proceeded to address both claims as one. See id. In this case, because plaintiff similarly brings claims u......
-
LaRouche v. Fowler
...and that relating to claims brought directly under the Constitution, "have been assimilated in most ... respects." Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (D.C.Cir.1996) (internal quotation and citation omitted) (ellipsis in original); see Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 28, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.E......
-
Jasperson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Civil Action No. 06-01488 (HHK).
...the duration of his confinement; he seeks only consideration of an ... alternate location for that confinement. See Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340-41 (D.C.Cir.1996) (a prisoner seeking relief "from his conviction or sentence" may not bring an action for injunctive relief) (citing Prei......
-
Liff v. Office of the Inspector Gen. for the U.S. Dep't of Labor
...The bodies of law relating to the two forms of litigation have been assimilated in most other respects.”); accord Williams v. Hill , 74 F.3d 1339 (D.C.Cir.1996).At the same time, although the D.C. Circuit ineluctably concluded that, under Owens , § 1983 claims must be governed by the Distri......