Mocbee v. Lee

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

Submitted December 15, 2021 ^[*]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:19-cv-00548-SEB-MPB Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.

Before DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge

ORDER

Brandon Mockbee, an Indiana prisoner, sued many of the public officials involved in his criminal trial. The district court dismissed his claims as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and for other reasons. Mockbee appeals, raising several challenges to the court's Heck analysis. We affirm with one modification.

Mockbee was convicted of Indiana state crimes and received a sentencing enhancement under the state's habitual offender statute, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (2015), based on several out-of-state convictions. Soon after, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that out-of-state convictions alone cannot trigger that enhancement. Calvin v. State, 87 N.E.3d 474, 479 (Ind. 2017), superseded by statute, 2018 Ind. Legis. Serv. P.L. 20-2018 (H.E.A. 1033). Based on that ruling, the state court of appeals reversed Mockbee's enhancement as not supported by substantial evidence, otherwise affirmed his conviction and sentence, and remanded to allow for a retrial of the enhancement. Mockbee v. State, 97 N.E.3d 311 (Ind. App. 2018).

Mockbee then brought this suit against the prosecutors, the judges, and a court reporter who handled his case for violating his constitutional rights by tampering with the trial record and applying an unlawful sentencing enhancement. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (He also sued prison officials for not allowing him adequate access to legal materials and other wrongs, but he does not press those claims on appeal.) At screening, the district court dismissed his complaint with prejudice, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, ruling that the claims related to trial-tampering and the enhancement were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and, in any case, the prosecutors and judges had absolute immunity.

Mockbee argues that his claims are not barred by Heck. Starting with the claims of tampering with the trial record, Mockbee says that he is not collaterally attacking his conviction, so Heck does not apply. But there is no other way to interpret these claims. A determination that the judge, court reporter, and two prosecutors conspired to tamper with the docket and hearing transcripts would "necessarily imply the invalidity" of his conviction, Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; see also Dominguez v. Hendley, 545 F.3d 585, 588-89 (7th Cir. 2008). Mockbee may not seek damages for these claims unless and until his conviction is set aside. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.

As for the claims based on the sentencing enhancement, Mockbee argues that he did satisfy Heck because the enhancement was reversed on appeal. Under Heck, a constitutional tort based on a conviction can go forward if "the conviction or sentence

has been reversed on direct appeal," Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, and Mockbee's sentencing enhancement was. Although the...