Kilman v. Williams, No. 19-1476 (10th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ TOBI KILMAN, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 19, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEAN WILLIAMS, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections; RICK RAEMISCH, Former Executive Director of the C.D.O.C.; JAMES RICKETS, Former Executive Director of the C.D.O.C.; TOM CLEMENTS, Former Executive Director of the C.D.O.C.; JOHN SUTHERS, Former Executive Director of the C.D.O.C.; JOE ORTIZ, Former Executive Director of the C.D.O.C.; ARISTEDES ZAVARES, Former Executive Director of the C.D.O.C.; FRANK GUNTER, Former Executive Director of the C.D.O.C.; WALTER KAUTZKY, Former Executive Director of the C.D.O.C. and unnamed former executive director of the C.D.O.C. Circa 1990-2019, No. 19-1476 (D.C. No. 1:19-CV-02265-LTB-GPG) (D. Colo.) Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * * After examining the briefs and 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). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Tobi Kilman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I. Background Kilman was a Colorado state prisoner at four different times between 1997 and 2017. In his complaint in this action, filed after his 2017 release, he alleged that he was deprived of 56 months of statutory good-time and earned-time credits. He asserted that this deprivation violated his rights under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He sought damages against the current and former Executive Directors of the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) in their individual capacities. His theory was that beginning in 1990, Executive Director Kautzky implemented a policy of improperly awarding good-time and earned-time credits, and successive Executive Directors have continued the policy. After granting Kilman leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), a magistrate judge screened the complaint and ordered Kilman to show cause why the district court should not dismiss it. Kilman responded. The magistrate judge then issued a report and recommendation that the action should be dismissed pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Under Heck, if “a judgment in favor of [a state prisoner] would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,” a district court must dismiss a § 1983 action “unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that 2 the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id. at 487. In the alternative, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for failure to allege facts showing either a constitutional violation or personal participation by any of the named defendants. Kilman filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The district court accepted and adopted the recommendation and dismissed the action for the reasons stated in the recommendation. Kilman appeals. II. Discussion Kilman primarily argues that Heck does not apply to his action because he did not seek to invalidate either his convictions or his sentences but only the manner in which his sentences were imposed. We disagree and therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal based on Heck. Consequently, we need not reach Kilman’s other arguments. Because the district court dismissed Kilman’s action as part of the IFP screening process, we construe its Heck dismissal as one under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)’s directive that a court must dismiss an action if it “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” See Smith v. Veterans Admin., 636 F.3d 1306, 1312 (10th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he dismissal of a civil rights suit for damages based on prematurity under Heck is for failure to state a claim.”). Thus, our review is de novo. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007) (applying de novo review to dismissal of IFP complaint for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We afford a 3 liberal construction to Kilman’s pro se filings, but we may not act as his advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). In applying Heck, the district court relied on our unpublished decision, Kailey v. Ritter, 500 F. App’x 766 (10th Cir. 2012). In Kailey, we held that Heck barred a § 1983 claim that Colorado prison officials violated a prisoner’s constitutional rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments when they failed to award him earned-time credits. See id. at 767, 769. Kilman attempts to distinguish Kailey in three ways: (1) Kailey was subject to discretionary parole, but Kilman was subject to mandatory parole, so Kilman has a liberty interest in the credits he allegedly did not receive; (2) Kailey’s action had technical and procedural issues that are lacking here; and (3) Kailey argued that earned-time credits could not be withheld for bad behavior, but Kilman raises no such argument. While these distinctions exist, Kilman does not explain why they are material to the Heck analysis, and we see no materiality. In Kailey, our application of Heck did not turn on any of the factual distinctions Kilman highlights. But regardless of Kailey, the Supreme Court has made clear that under its precedent, including Heck, a writ of habeas corpus is the sole federal remedy in cases where a state prisoner seeks any relief, damages or otherwise, that would “necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005). Kilman’s success in a § 1983 action for damages based on the deprivation of good-time and earned-time credits would require a federal court to determine that prison officials wrongly deprived him of those credits and held 4 Kilman longer than they should have. That would necessarily demonstrate that the duration of Kilman’s confinement was invalid, even if his claim is viewed purely as a due process challenge to CDOC’s allegedly wrongful procedure for computing credits. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997) (applying Heck to prisoner’s § 1983 suit that, if successful on procedural challenge, would imply the invalidity of the deprivation of good-time credits). Accordingly, to obtain federal relief, Kilman had to pursue a writ of habeas corpus. As the district court noted, Heck does not apply when a plaintiff has no available habeas remedy, but the plaintiff must show that the lack of a habeas remedy is “through no lack of diligence on his part.” Cohen v. Longshore, 621 F.3d 1311, 1317 (10th Cir. 2010). The only statement in Kilman’s appellate brief that could be construed as relevant to the Cohen exception is his claim that he was simply unaware of the CDOC’s “corrupt time-computation practices until he had already [been] discharged.” Aplt. Br. at 4. His lack of awareness, however, shows nothing more than a lack of diligence in filing any habeas petitions during his incarcerations. See Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) (“[I]t is well established that ignorance of the law, even for an incarcerated pro se petitioner, generally does not excuse prompt filing.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Kilman, therefore, has not shown that Cohen’s exception to Heck applies. III. Conclusion The district court’s judgment is affirmed. We grant Kilman’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal and remind him of his obligation to continue making partial 5 payments until the appellate filing and docketing fees are paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (excusing only “prepayment of fees”); id. § 1915(b)(1) (requiring prisoners to make partial payments of filing fees). 1 Entered for the Court Per Curiam 1 Section 1915(b)(1)’s partial-payment fee provisions apply to Kilman because at the time he filed this appeal, he was a pretrial detainee at a Colorado county detention center. 6

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.