Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Rodriguez v. Carhart, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The US Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Jose Rodriguez's Section 1983 civil rights claims and state law claims against various defendants, including a prosecutor, defense attorney, court officer, and court reporter. Rodriguez alleged the defendants conspired to ensure his criminal conviction through unconstitutional means and covered up their misconduct. The Court held that under Heck v. Humphrey, Rodriguez's claims were not cognizable because success would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, which had not been overturned. The Court remanded with instructions to dismiss all claims without prejudice.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Rodriguez v. Carhart, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views14 pages
    The US Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Jose Rodriguez's Section 1983 civil rights claims and state law claims against various defendants, including a prosecutor, defense attorney, court officer, and court reporter. Rodriguez alleged the defendants conspired to ensure his criminal conviction through unconstitutional means and covered up their misconduct. The Court held that under Heck v. Humphrey, Rodriguez's claims were not cognizable because success would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, which had not been overturned. The Court remanded with instructions to dismiss all claims without prejudice.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-01-10 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 95-1345

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The US Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Jose Rodriguez's Section 1983 civil rights claims and state law claims against various defendants, including a prosecutor, defense attorney, court officer, and court reporter. Rodriguez alleged the defendants conspired to ensure his criminal conviction through unconstitutional means and covered up their misconduct. The Court held that under Heck v. Humphrey, Rodriguez's claims were not cognizable because success would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, which had not been overturned. The Court remanded with instructions to dismiss all claims without prejudice.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    18 views14 pages

    Rodriguez v. Carhart, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The US Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Jose Rodriguez's Section 1983 civil rights claims and state law claims against various defendants, including a prosecutor, defense attorney, court officer, and court reporter. Rodriguez alleged the defendants conspired to ensure his criminal conviction through unconstitutional means and covered up their misconduct. The Court held that under Heck v. Humphrey, Rodriguez's claims were not cognizable because success would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, which had not been overturned. The Court remanded with instructions to dismiss all claims without prejudice.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 14

    USCA1 Opinion

    January 10, 1996

    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    ____________________

    No. 95-1345

    JOSE L. RODRIGUEZ,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    JUDD J. CARHART, ET AL.,

    Defendants, Appellees.

    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]


    ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,


    Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ____________________

    Jose L. Rodriguez on brief pro se.


    _________________

    Walter B. Prince and Peckham, Lobel, Casey, Prince & Tye on br


    ________________
    ___________________________________
    for appellee Judd Carhart.
    George Criss on brief pro se.
    ____________

    Lisa Poblocki and Dolores E. O'Neill on brief for appellee Rob


    _____________
    __________________
    Craig.
    Scott Harshbarger,

    Attorney General, and Elisabeth

    J. Medved

    _________________

    ____________________

    Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee Sydney Hanlon.

    ____________________

    ____________________

    Per Curiam.
    __________

    court

    U.S.C.

    Jose Rodriguez appeals from a district

    judgment dismissing

    1983,

    section 1983

    his civil

    rights claim

    together with pendent state-law

    claim charged

    that

    under 42

    claims.

    prosecutor Sydney

    His

    Hanlon,

    defense counsel Judd Carhart, court officer Robert Craig, and

    court

    reporter

    conviction by

    misconduct

    by

    transcripts.

    ruling,

    (1994),

    George

    Criss

    conspired

    unconstitutional means

    withholding,

    We

    affirm

    losing

    the

    to

    ensure

    and to cover

    or

    district

    his

    up their

    altering

    critical

    court's

    dismissal

    in accordance with Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364


    ____
    ________

    but

    remand

    to

    permit

    dismissal, without prejudice.


    _______ _________

    entry

    of

    judgment

    See Guzman-Rivera v.
    ___ _____________

    of

    Rivera_______

    Cruz, 29 F.3d 3, 6 (1st Cir. 1994).


    ____

    defendants conspired

    unconstitutional

    to

    The

    claim

    procure Rodriguez's

    means,

    and

    to

    cover

    validity

    up

    of

    that

    conviction

    their

    essentially

    challenges

    the

    the

    conviction.

    See Abella
    ___ ______

    v. Rubino, 63 F.3d 1063,


    ______

    by

    actions,

    underlying

    1065 (11th

    Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (dismissing, under Heck, Bivens claim


    ____ ______

    that defendants

    conviction

    criminal

    conspired to ensure civil action plaintiff's

    by fabricating

    other evidence

    in

    trial); Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 283 (5th Cir.


    ____
    _______

    1994) (per curiam)

    that

    testimony and

    defendants

    (dismissing, under Heck,


    ____

    had

    conspired

    to

    convict

    1983

    civil

    claim

    action

    plaintiff by providing ineffective assistance of counsel

    and

    withholding

    exculpatory

    evidence

    in criminal

    proceeding);

    -2-

    Bell
    ____

    v. Peters, 33 F.3d 18,


    ______

    (vacating,

    under Heck, a
    ____

    1983 plaintiff's claim that

    procured

    by

    19 (7th Cir. 1994) (per curiam)

    judgment on the

    merits of section

    his criminal conviction had been

    unconstitutional

    conduct;

    remanding

    for

    determination as

    The holding

    to whether conviction had been overturned).

    in Heck applies
    ____

    retroactively.

    See
    ___

    Abella, 63
    ______

    defaulted

    before the

    F.3d at 1064; Boyd, 31 F.3d at 282 n.2.


    ____

    district

    Since

    Craig

    and Criss

    court

    dismissed

    the

    had

    present

    action,

    Rodriguez

    argues, citing Quirindongo Pacheco v. Rolon Morales, 953 F.2d


    ___________________
    _____________

    15

    (1st Cir. 1992), that

    he should have

    been notified that

    the court intended to review the sufficiency of the complaint

    against those

    id. at
    __

    would

    defendants.

    16, neither prior

    have

    been useful

    Unlike in the

    notice nor an

    to

    Rodriguez

    Quirindongo case,
    ___________

    evidentiary hearing

    since Heck
    ____

    dismissal of the damages claim as a matter of law.

    required

    Rodriguez argues

    reporter should not have

    that the claim

    been dismissed, because the failure

    to deliver accurate transcripts was a

    and

    he

    cannot

    transcripts.1

    against the court

    overturn

    Because

    his

    "subissue" in the case

    conviction

    without

    Rodriguez alleged

    that

    accurate

    the

    court

    ____________________

    1Rodriguez may be suggesting that the delay in providing


    transcripts violates his due process right to a speedy appeal
    and that such

    a claim

    should not be

    See,
    ___

    e.g., Harris v. Champion,


    ____ ______
    ________

    Cir.

    1995)

    alleging

    (considering

    excessive

    delay

    dismissed under

    51 F.3d 901,

    1983 claim
    in

    processing

    for

    Heck.
    ____

    906, 909 (10th


    money
    direct

    damages
    criminal

    appeals); but see United States v. Luciano-Mosquera, 63 F.3d


    ___ ___ ______________
    ________________

    -33

    reporter

    conspired

    lose

    alter

    or

    conviction

    conviction.

    with the

    transcripts

    is invalid,

    other defendants

    necessary

    he is,

    to

    in essence,

    to withhold,

    show

    that

    his

    challenging his

    See Sutton v. Lash, 576 F.2d 738, 746


    ___ ______
    ____

    (7th Cir.

    1978) (per curiam) (retrial is proper remedy for claimed loss

    of

    critical transcripts

    which preclude

    meaningful criminal

    appeal); see also


    ___ ____

    Wilcox v. Miller, 691 F.2d


    ______
    ______

    (5th

    (claim

    Cir.

    1982)

    that

    defendants

    739, 741 & n.4

    in

    civil

    suit

    conspired to

    alter criminal

    trial transcripts to

    assure an

    affirmance of civil plaintiff's criminal conviction on appeal

    "would seem" to

    accord
    ______

    challenge validity of

    Tedford v.
    _______

    Hepting, 990
    _______

    criminal conviction);

    F.2d 745

    denied, 114 S. Ct. 317 (1993) (similar).


    ______

    (3d Cir.),

    cert.
    ____

    Consequently,

    Heck
    ____

    applies.

    Since

    challenges

    the

    the validity

    declaratory

    relief

    Abella,
    ______

    F.3d

    63

    Rodriguez

    of

    his conviction,

    was properly

    at

    ____________________

    1066

    conspiracy

    dismissed

    (dismissing

    claim

    also

    the claim

    for

    as

    Bivens
    ______

    well.

    See
    ___

    action

    for

    1142, 1158

    (1st Cir.

    1995) (analyzing merits

    appeal from conviction to determine prejudice


    appellate

    delay).

    presented

    to

    the district

    present purposes.
    F.2d 1,

    See
    ___

    this claim
    court,

    we

    resulting from

    was
    deem it

    United States v.
    _____________

    3 (1st Cir. 1993).

    the path of any


    a

    Because

    of underlying

    not

    squarely

    waived

    for

    Ocasio-Rivera, 991
    _____________

    Yet another hurdle

    may loom in

    section 1983 claim for damages based on such

    speedy-appeal claim.

    It may

    well

    be that

    Parratt
    _______

    v.

    Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541-44 (1981), would be implicated were


    ______
    it

    to appear

    adequate

    that

    Massachusetts law

    post-deprivation

    remedy.

    affords Rodriguez
    See
    ___

    Commonwealth, 630 N.E.2d 596, 598 (Mass. 1994).


    ____________

    -44

    Campiti
    _______

    an
    v.

    declaratory

    relief

    against

    conspired to convict plaintiff,

    is exclusive remedy,

    (1973)).

    the

    defendants,

    who

    on ground that habeas relief

    per Preiser v. Rodriguez,


    _______
    _________

    Moreover, the claim for

    court reporter is moot

    allegedly

    411 U.S. 475

    injunctive relief against

    since it is

    undisputed that the

    suppression hearing tape had been lost and that the defendant
    ___________ _______ ____

    court

    reporter turned the voir


    ____

    different

    court

    reporter

    who

    dire hearing tape


    ____ _______ ____

    prepared

    and

    delivered

    Rodriguez a transcript based on the latter tape.

    v.

    Caldwell,
    ________

    curiam)

    741

    1983

    F.2d 1246,

    1247

    claim

    injunctive

    for

    (10th

    over to a

    See DeLancy
    ___ _______

    Cir. 1984)

    relief

    to

    (per

    directing

    preparation of trial transcripts mooted because defendant had

    provided transcripts to plaintiff after suit was filed).

    As the premature section

    dismissed,

    modified

    we direct

    that

    so as to dismiss

    1983 claims were properly

    the district

    court judgment

    both the section

    1983 claims and

    the pendent state-law claims against all defendants,

    prejudice.
    _________

    No costs.
    __ _____

    So ordered.
    So ordered.
    __ _______

    be

    without
    _______

    -55

    You might also like