Washington v. Leonard, 10th Cir. (2007)
Washington v. Leonard, 10th Cir. (2007)
LARRY WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
No. 07-6103
Defendant-Appellee.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is, therefore,
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Larry Washington, an Oklahoma state prisoner appearing pro se, appeals
from the district courts sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint against
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
-3-
prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to
amend. Perkins v. Kansas Dept of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999). In
conducting our review, we construe the pro se pleadings liberally, applying a less
stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Trackwell v. United States
Govt, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007).
In his appellate pleadings, Washington focuses exclusively on the statute of
limitations issue, asserting that it was not until November 2004 that he learned that
Leonard was not licensed at the time of Washingtons 2001 criminal proceedings. We
find it unnecessary to resolve the statute of limitations issue because we conclude that
Washingtons 1983 complaint is foreclosed by Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641
(1997) and Heck. In Edwards, the Supreme Court explained that a state prisoners claim
for damages is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 if a judgment in favor of the
plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, unless the
prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously been invalidated.
520 U.S. at 643 (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487). We have considered the allegations
underlying Washingtons complaint and agree with the district court that a judgment in
his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his state conviction and/or sentence.
Consequently, because Washington has not shown that either his sentence or conviction
has been invalidated, he cannot assert a cognizable claim for damages under 1983 based
on defendant Leonards alleged misconduct.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Washingtons motion to
-4-
proceed without prepayment of the appellate filing fee is DENIED and Washington is
ordered to make immediate payment of the unpaid balance due. Washingtons motion to
amend his opening brief is granted.
-5-