Jim Harris, Jr. v. Ellis McSwain ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                    United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-1320
    ___________
    Jim Harris, Jr.,                        *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                               * District Court for the Western
    * District of Missouri.
    Ellis McSwain; MO Dept. of              *
    Corrections,                            * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellees,                 *
    *
    Lisa Looten; Richard Hart; Lindy        *
    Vaughn; Danny Dodson; Capt.             *
    Jerry Carter; Pemiscot County           *
    Sheriff Dept; Institutional Grievance   *
    Officer at Algoa,                       *
    *
    Defendants,                *
    *
    Lili T. Adams; Greg Dohgne;             *
    Joan McDonald; Chairman of the          *
    Board; 3 Parole Officers,               *
    *
    Appellees.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 4, 2011
    Filed: May 9, 2011
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In July 2010 Jim Harris, Jr., filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for damages,
    naming the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) and several individual
    defendants. He alleged that he had been detained at the Algoa Correctional Center
    and should have been released in May 2008, but that he was not released until July
    2009, because MDOC failed to credit him for his time served prior to sentencing,
    contrary to the sentencing judge’s order. He also asserted that a state court had
    granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, agreeing that he was entitled to time
    served while on probation and awaiting revocation and sentencing; he submitted a
    copy of the state court’s declaratory judgment (Doc. 12). Harris claimed that his
    illegal incarceration violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that
    defendants had knowledge of his unlawful incarceration but refused to act to remedy
    it. He sought damages for the period of unlawful incarceration.
    The district court dismissed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. As relevant to
    this appeal, the court concluded that Harris could seek relief only through a petition
    for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Harris has moved for leave to proceed in
    forma pauperis, which we grant. See Henderson v. Norris, 
    129 F.3d 481
    , 484-85 (8th
    Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (outlining fee-collection provisions).
    We affirm the district court’s dismissal of defendant MDOC because it is
    immune from suit. See Monroe v. Ark. State Univ., 
    495 F.3d 591
    , 594 (8th Cir.
    2007) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states and state agencies for any kind
    of relief); Walker v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 
    213 F.3d 1035
    , 1036 (8th Cir. 2000)
    (recognizing MDOC as state agency); see also Cooper v. Schriro, 
    189 F.3d 781
    , 783
    (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo review).
    As to the individual appellees, however, we conclude that the district court
    erred in dismissing Harris’s claim. Harris was not seeking release from custody--he
    -2-
    alleged the custody in question had ended. He was seeking damages for a prior
    period of unlawful detention. Harris alleged that he had been detained beyond the
    date that his lawful sentence had ended; that a state court had declared that this
    additional period of detention was beyond the length of his lawful sentence; and that
    the individual appellees knew of his unlawful detention but refused to act to remedy
    it. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for damages for violation of
    Harris’s constitutional rights. See Russell v. Hennepin County, 
    420 F.3d 841
    , 846
    (8th Cir. 2005); Davis v. Hall, 
    375 F.3d 703
    , 718 (8th Cir. 2004); see also Sample v.
    Diecks, 
    885 F.2d 1099
    , 1108-10 (3d Cir. 1989); cf. Heck v. Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
    ,
    486-87 (1994) (in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction
    or imprisonment, § 1983 plaintiff must prove that conviction or sentence has been
    reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by state
    tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by federal
    court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus).
    Accordingly, we affirm as to MDOC, we reverse the district court’s dismissal
    of Harris’s claim for damages as to the individual appellees, and we remand for
    further proceedings in the district court. We deny as moot Harris’s pending motion
    for appointment of counsel.
    ______________________________
    -3-