Cozens v. Woodward County, No. 12-6019 (10th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 9, 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT SCOTT ALAN COZENS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. No.12-6019 (D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00841-C) WOODWARD COUNTY OKLAHOMA, ex rel. THE WOODWARD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; WOODWARD COUNTY DISTRICT COURT; WOODWARD COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT, (W.D. Oklahoma) Defendants Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, McKAY and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and the 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). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff appeals from the district court s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. In this complaint, Plaintiff alleged his constitutional rights were violated * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. when he received a flat state court sentence under which he received no good time credits, allegedly contrary to Oklahoma law. The district court concluded that Plaintiff could not state a valid claim for relief under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his state court sentence. On appeal, Plaintiff contends Heck is inapplicable because his § 1983 claim was based on unconstitutional procedures, similar to the § 1983 claim that was allowed in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554-55 (1974). However, Heck applies whenever a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, regardless of whether the claim is labeled as procedural or substantive. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645-46 (1997). The claim in Wolff could proceed under § 1983 because it did not call into question the lawfulness of the plaintiff s continuing confinement, Heck, 512 U.S. at 483 (emphasis omitted), and it is thus readily distinguishable from the instant case. In this case, success on Plaintiff s § 1983 claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence, and therefore the district court correctly dismissed the complaint under Heck. The district court s judgment is AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
