Jennings v. Yates

Summary

Unpublished Tenth Circuit case affirming dismissal of a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging a prison disciplinary conviction. The court held that claims for restoration of good-time credits must be brought in habeas corpus, and remaining § 1983 claims were premature under *Heck v. Humphrey* because they would necessarily imply the invalidity of the disciplinary conviction. The district court did not err in failing to order a *Martinez* report because the complaint was facially insufficient to state a claim. The court also found appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the district court’s dismissal without prejudice was intended to end the entire action.

Holdings

1. The district court's dismissal of the entire action is final and appealable because the court's order and judgment reflected an intent to dismiss the action, not just the complaint.
2. District courts are not required to order a Martinez report to evaluate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) or 1915A(b) whether a complaint fails, on its face, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court's dismissal of the action without prejudice was a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2. Whether the district court erred by failing to order a Martinez report before dismissing Jennings's complaint for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

affirmed