CLD-209 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

(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

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

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

We have jurisdiction pursuant to

. We exercise plenary review

over a district court’s dismissal under

(e)(2)(b). See Allah v. Seiverling,

(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

(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,

(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,

(1997) (citing Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994)).

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

summarily affirm.

3