Lawrence Wayne Corum v. Thomas McGuire, Jr. ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                                     ___________
    No. 95-4232
    ___________
    Lawrence Wayne Corum,                    *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    *
    v.                                  *   Appeal from the United States
    *   District Court for the
    Thomas K. McGuire, Jr., Greene           *   Western District of Missouri.
    County Circuit Court Judge;              *
    Mel Carnahan, Governor of the            *        [UNPUBLISHED]
    State of Missouri; Dr. White,            *
    *
    Appellees.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted:    October 7, 1996
    Filed:   October 15, 1996
    ___________
    Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Lawrence W. Corum, a Missouri inmate, appeals from the district
    court's1 order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. §
    1983 action.    We affirm.
    Corum filed this section 1983 action against then Greene County
    Circuit Court Judge Thomas K. McGuire, Jr., Governor Mel Carnahan, and
    former Missouri Department of Corrections employee Dr. White, seeking
    declaratory relief and damages.       Corum claimed that his equal protection
    and due process rights were violated because he was charged by information,
    rather than indictment; because he pleaded guilty and was sentenced by
    Judge McGuire under
    1
    The Honorable Russell G. Clark, United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri.
    a repealed statute; because Judge McGuire was mentally incompetent at the
    time he accepted Corum's plea; and because the disparity between his
    sentence and those Judge McGuire gave to "other individuals sentenced by
    the court" demonstrated judicial bias.        Corum further alleged Governor
    Carnahan's office deceptively led his wife to believe his petition for
    clemency would be seriously considered.      As to Dr. White, Corum contended
    that he was first told he tested positive for tuberculosis and then told
    he tested negative, and that, notwithstanding his negative results, he
    submitted to unnecessary treatment after Dr. White told him refusal to
    submit to the treatment would result in "serious consequences"; Corum
    claimed the unwanted treatment constituted an assault and battery.            Upon
    the defendants' motions, the district court dismissed Corum's complaint for
    failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    12(b)(6).
    We review de novo the grant of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), viewing
    the complaint in the light most favorable to Corum, and affirming only if
    it appears beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts that would
    entitle him to relief.    See Weaver v. Clark, 
    45 F.3d 1253
    , 1255 (8th Cir.
    1995) (standard of review).
    Corum cannot challenge the validity of his conviction and sentence
    in this section 1983 action, but must do so through a habeas corpus action
    against the appropriate Missouri prison official, and then only after he
    has exhausted all of his available adequate state remedies.          See Preiser
    v. Rodriguez, 
    411 U.S. 475
    , 489-90 (1973); Franklin v. Webb, 
    653 F.2d 362
    ,
    364 (8th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (correct to focus on nature of complaint
    rather than relief sought); Offet v. Solem, 
    823 F.2d 1256
    , 1258 (8th Cir.
    1987) (applying Preiser to § 1983 action seeking declaratory relief).
    Furthermore,   to   the   extent   Corum   seeks   damages   for   his   allegedly
    unconstitutional conviction and sentence, his section 1983 action is barred
    until he can show his conviction or sentence has been invalidated.            See
    Heck v. Humphrey, 
    114 S. Ct. 2364
    , 2372 (1994);
    -2-
    see   also   Stump   v.   Sparkman,   
    435 U.S. 349
    ,   355-57   (1978)   (judicial
    immunity).
    Corum's claim Governor Carnahan deceived him concerning clemency
    consideration does not implicate any constitutional right.             See Cross v.
    City of Des Moines, 
    965 F.2d 629
    , 631-32 (8th Cir. 1992); Otey v. Hopkins,
    
    5 F.3d 1125
    , 1128-29 n.3 (8th Cir. 1993) ("standardless" clemency statute
    creates no protectable interest, only right to ask for mercy), cert.
    denied, 
    114 S. Ct. 2768
    (1994); Whitmore v. Gaines, 
    24 F.3d 1032
    , 1034 (8th
    Cir. 1994) (clemency denial discretionary absent interest created in
    statute).
    Finally, even assuming Corum's claim against Dr. White may be
    liberally construed as a claim that Dr. White was deliberately indifferent
    to Corum's medical needs, it fails because Corum did not allege that Dr.
    White knew that Corum's positive test results were not accurate.             See Lee
    v. Armontrout, 
    991 F.2d 487
    , 489 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) ("prison officials
    must test prisoners for tuberculosis and treat them . . . if they test
    positive in order to prevent widespread infection"), cert. denied, 510 U.S.
    U.S. 875 (1993); Boyd v. Knox, 
    47 F.3d 966
    , 968 (8th Cir. 1995) (citation
    omitted) (prison officials are deliberately indifferent to prisoner's
    serious medical needs when they actually "know[] of and disregard[]" those
    needs).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.