| Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added |     (11308 bytes)     (7529 bytes)

Appellant Carl Joe Saiz, previously a state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's decision dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the assistant warden of the correctional center where he was incarcerated and the chairman of the Colorado Board of Parole. Mr. Saiz does not contest the validity of his sentence, but contends defendants violated his constitutional rights by requiring him to serve a thirty-month sentence when he initially bargained for only a sixteen-month sentence.

We review the dismissal of a § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted de novo. See Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140, 1143 (10th Cir. 1998). The district court dismissed Mr. Saiz's § 1983 complaint based on the principles articulated in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court stated a plaintiff cannot recover damages in a § 1983 action implicating the validity of a criminal conviction or sentence without proof that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal, or questioned by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 486-87; see also Crow v. Penry, 102 F.3d 1086, 1087 (10th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). A review of the record on appeal confirms the district court's determination that Mr. Saiz does not allege or intimate any authorized entity has reversed, expunged, invalidated, or questioned his term of imprisonment in any way. For this reason, we AFFIRM the district court's decision to dismiss Mr. Saiz's § 1983 complaint without prejudice, and DISMISS the appeal.⁽¹⁾

Entered by the Court:

WADE BRORBY

United States Circuit Judge

^*. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

^1. The district court denied Mr. Saiz's motion to proceed in forma pauperis finding the appeal lacked good faith because he failed to show a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.We agree and deny his request to proceed in forma pauperis.

| Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added |     (11308 bytes)     (7529 bytes)