Alan Garrett v. United States

CLD-183 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-1083 ___________ ALAN D. GARRETT, Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-18-cv-14515) District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle ____________________________________ 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 May 9, 2019 Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 13, 2019) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Alan D. Garrett, proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim.

For the reasons discussed below, we will summarily affirm.

I.

Because we write primarily for the parties, we will recite only the facts necessary for our discussion. Garrett, a federal prisoner, is currently incarcerated at Schuylkill FCI.

In September 2011, he pleaded guilty in the District Court to the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm. See United States v. Garrett, 507 F. App’x 139, 139–40 (3d Cir. 2012) (non-precedential) (affirming judgment of conviction and sentence). He was sentenced to 77 months’ imprisonment based, in part, on a sentencing guidelines calculation that incorporated his prior state convictions. See id. at 143. Although Garrett is currently litigating a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, his federal conviction and sentence have not been invalidated.

In October 2018, Garrett filed a complaint in the District Court seeking damages against the United States. He claimed that his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated during his federal criminal proceedings. He alleged that his counsel was ineffective, that his guilty plea was invalid, and that an excessive sentence was imposed based on an erroneous application of the sentencing guidelines. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), determining that all of Garrett’s claims were barred by the favorable termination rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). This appeal ensued.1 II.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the District Court’s dismissal order is plenary. See generally Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We review the District Court’s conclusion that Garrett’s complaint failed to state a claim using the same standard that we use for Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissals. See Allah, 229 F.3d at 223. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). We may summarily affirm “on any basis supported by the record” if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

III.

The District Court properly determined that all of the claims in Garrett’s complaint are barred by Heck. See 512 U.S. at 486–87. In Heck, “the Supreme Court held that a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 suit should be dismissed when ‘a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.’”

Long v. Atl. City Police Dep’t, 670 F.3d 436, 447 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487); see also Lora-Pena v. F.B.I., 529 F.3d 503, 505 n.2 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“[T]he reasoning in Heck has been applied to bar [Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)] claims.”). Here, because Garrett’s claims directly challenged the validity of his federal conviction and sentence—which have not been invalidated—his complaint sought “the sort of relief that is plainly barred by Heck.”

Long, 670 F.3d at 447.2 Accordingly, the District Court properly dismissed the complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend. See Curry v. Yachera, 835 F.3d 373, 379 (3d Cir. 2016).3 For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. In light of our disposition, Garrett’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155–56 (3d Cir. 1993).