Larry N. WHITE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICE, et al., Appellees

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit1998-07-28No. No. 97-5353

148 F.3d 1124

Summary · law.co

Holding. A prisoner's damages claim under the Privacy Act challenging the accuracy of legal conclusions in a presentence report that affect sentence length is not cognizable unless the sentence has been invalidated in a prior separate proceeding. The motion for summary affirmance is granted.

Larry White, a federal prisoner, filed a lawsuit under the Privacy Act seeking damages and record corrections based on allegedly inaccurate legal conclusions in his presentence report. He contended that these errors affected his parole eligibility and required him to serve additional prison time. The district court dismissed the action, finding no legal basis for using the Privacy Act to collaterally attack a sentence that had already been challenged through direct appeal and habeas motions.

The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Privacy Act claims challenging the duration of a sentence are not viable unless the underlying sentence has been separately invalidated through proper channels. The court reasoned that even though the Privacy Act ordinarily allows damages suits and requests for record amendment, presentence reports are exempted from amendment under federal regulations. More fundamentally, a damages claim based on legal conclusions affecting sentence length constitutes an indirect attack on the sentence itself and is barred under established precedent.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether Privacy Act claims can be used to collaterally attack a sentence
Whether presentence reports are subject to amendment under the Privacy Act
Whether legal conclusions in sentencing documents differ from factual statements for Privacy Act purposes
Application of Heck v. Humphrey principles to Privacy Act damages claims

Procedural posture

The defendant filed a motion for summary affirmance in response to the prisoner's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his Privacy Act suit.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

On Motion for Summary Affirmance

PER CURIAM:

The main question presented by this appeal is whether a claim for damages under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), can be brought by a federal prisoner in order collaterally to attack his sentence. We hold that such a claim is not cognizable under the Privacy Act unless the sentence has been invalidated in a prior proceeding.

After Larry N. White was convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, he brought this action under the Privacy Act claiming that the Federal Buread of Prisons (BOP), the U.S. Parole Commission, and certáin individuals refused to correct inaccurate statements in his presentence report regarding the applicable -law under which he was sentenced. White claims that as a result of this inaccuracy, he is ineligible for parole and is required to serve more time in prison than he would have if he- had been sentenced under the appropriate law. He seeks damages • and - an order directing the BOP to amend its records. In .dismissing the action,, the district court noted that White previously challenged his sentence on direct appeal, see U.S. v. Walton, 908 F.2d 1289 (6th Cir.1990), and in motions to vacate his -sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and stated that it was “unaware of any authority that would sanction plaintiffs use of the Privacy Act to attack collaterally the actions of the sentencing court.”

The Privacy Act permits a suit for damages if an agency’s violation of § 552a(e)(5) results in a determination adverse to the individual. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(g)(l)(C), (g)(4). The Act also gives an individual the right to request amendment of his records. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d). Under regulations, however, presentence reports and BOP inmate records systems are exempt from the amendment provisions of the Act. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.51(c), 16.97(a); Deters v. United States Parole Comm’n, 85 F.3d 655, 658 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1996). Accordingly, White is barred from .seeking amendment of his presentence report.

Nor is White entitled to money damages for the alleged “inaccuracies” in calculating his sentence. He does not allege that there are inaccurate factual statements in the pre-sentence report, see Deters, 85 F.3d at 660; Sellers v. Bureau of Prisons, 959 F.2d 307, 309-10 (D.C.Cir.1992); rather he essentially contests that portion of the report consisting of legal conclusions that aided the sentencing court in computing the length of his sentence. As a result, his complaint must be viewed as a challenge to the duration of his sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973).

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), the Supreme Court held that a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that challenges the fact or duration of a prisoner’s conviction or confinement is not cognizable unless that conviction or confinement has been invalidated in a separate proceeding. A plaintiff who seeks to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional confinement (or any other harm caused by actions the unlawfulness of which would render his sentence invalid) must prove that the sentence has been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a fed- eral court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. The rationale of Heck has been applied to damage claims against federal officials in actions under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), see Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (D.C.Cir.1996), and to a claim for damages brought by a state prisoner challenging the validity of disciplinary proceedings used to deprive him of good-time credits, thereby delaying his release, see Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 1588-89, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997).

We conclude that White’s suit, which seeks damages in conjunction with a challenge to the length of his confinement, is governed by Preiser and Heck. Because a judgment in favor of White on his challenge to the legal conclusions in his presentence report would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence, which has not been invalidated in a prior proceeding, his complaint for damages under the Privacy Act must be dismissed. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is

Granted.