Michael Dilworth v. H. Corpening

Fourth Circuit

Michael Dilworth v. H. Corpening

613 F. App'x 275

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 1, 2015

Docket15-6889

StatusUnpublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 613 F. App'x 275 (Michael Dilworth v. H. Corpening) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michael Dilworth v. H. Corpening, 613 F. App'x 275 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed as modified by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Dilworth appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. Dil-worth’s complaint challenged a prison disciplinary conviction that resulted in the loss of good time credits, alleged that Defendant Freeman violated his rights under the First Amendment, and sought damages and injunctive relief. Dilworth confines his appeal to the dismissal of his challenge to his prison disciplinary conviction.

The district court properly dismissed the claim because it was not cognizable under § 1983 in the absence of a showing that the disciplinary conviction supporting the revocation of good time credits has been overturned. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645-46, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir.2002) (applying Heck to claims for injunctive relief), abrogated on other grounds by Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011). A prisoner may challenge the revocation of good time credits only by way of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). Accordingly, we modify the district court’s order to reflect that Dilworth’s challenge to the revocation of good time credits is dismissed without prejudice to his right to reassert his challenge in a habeas action and affirm the order as modified. See *276 Dilworth v. Corpening, No. 1:15-cv-00036-FDW, 2015 WL 3448785 (W.D.N.C. May 29, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed as modified by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Dilworth appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. Dil-worth’s complaint challenged a prison disciplinary conviction that resulted in the loss of good time credits, alleged that Defendant Freeman violated his rights under the First Amendment, and sought damages and injunctive relief. Dilworth confines his appeal to the dismissal of his challenge to his prison disciplinary conviction.

The district court properly dismissed the claim because it was not cognizable under § 1983 in the absence of a showing that the disciplinary conviction supporting the revocation of good time credits has been overturned. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645-46, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir.2002) (applying Heck to claims for injunctive relief), abrogated on other grounds by Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011). A prisoner may challenge the revocation of good time credits only by way of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). Accordingly, we modify the district court’s order to reflect that Dilworth’s challenge to the revocation of good time credits is dismissed without prejudice to his right to reassert his challenge in a habeas action and affirm the order as modified. See *276 Dilworth v. Corpening, No. 1:15-cv-00036-FDW, 2015 WL 3448785 (W.D.N.C. May 29, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

613 F. App'x 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-dilworth-v-h-corpening-ca4-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack