Viles Delices v. Kendric Cummins

Summary

A magistrate judge recommends dismissing without prejudice a pro se prisoner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 retaliation claim against a correctional sergeant. The recommendation concludes that the claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey and Edwards v. Balisok because the challenged disciplinary report resulted in a loss of gain time and has not been invalidated. The court also recommends declining supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Holdings

1. A prisoner's § 1983 retaliation claim is barred when proving the claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of a disciplinary conviction that resulted in the loss of gain time, unless that conviction has previously been invalidated. Because Delices was found guilty, lost gain time, and did not allege that the disciplinary report had been overturned, the retaliation claim should be dismissed without prejudice.
2. The court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the breach-of-fiduciary-duty and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims after dismissal of the only federal claim and should dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Delices's First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is barred by Heck v. Humphrey and Edwards v. Balisok because success would necessarily imply the invalidity of a prison disciplinary conviction that resulted in the loss of gain time.
2. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Delices's state-law claims after dismissal of the sole federal claim.

Disposition

dismissed