Click Back Button to Return to Publication
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE ALONZO HINTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GORDON HANSEN, RUO # 272; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
47 Fed. Appx. 325
September 19, 2002, Filed
NOTICE:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT
PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.
PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS
NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
Before: MARTIN, Chief Judge; MOORE, Circuit Judge; WISEMAN,
District Judge. *
Clarence Alonzo Hinton appeals pro se from a district court
judgment that dismissed his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
His appeal has been referred to a panel of this court pursuant to Rule
34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, the panel unanimously
agrees that oral argument is not needed in this case. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
Hinton
alleged that the defendants had violated his constitutional rights while he was
incarcerated in a Michigan state prison. He primarily alleged that he had been
assaulted by several prison guards in 1999. The district court adopted a
magistrate judge's recommendation and awarded summary judgment to the
defendants on March 15, 2002. Hinton's motion for reconsideration was denied
and he now appeals, moving for the appointment of counsel on appeal.
We review an award of summary judgment de novo. Moore v.
Holbrook, 2 F.3d 697, 698 (6th Cir. 1993). Summary judgment is appropriate if
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
In the
instant case, Hinton's claims are plainly based on his allegation that the
defendants had attacked him without provocation and that he had not resisted or
fought against them. However, Hinton was charged with two misconduct violations
for assault and battery, based on allegations that he had knocked defendant
Thurlby backwards and had kicked defendant Hansen in the chest during the
incident. He was found guilty of both charges and sanctioned with sixty days of
detention.
The
district court properly found that Hinton could not relitigate the primary
issues of provocation and resistance, as he had been convicted of misconduct
violations for assaulting defendants Thurlby and Hansen. Therefore, the court properly
dismissed Hinton's civil rights case because a favorable ruling on his claims
would undermine the validity of his misconduct convictions and because he had
not shown that these convictions were overturned by an appropriate tribunal.
See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648,
137 L. Ed. 2d 906, 117 S. Ct. 1584 (1997); Huey v. Stine, 230 F.3d 226, 230-31
(6th Cir. 2000). We have considered the arguments [*327] in Hinton's
current brief, but they do not raise any persuasive challenge to the district
court's rationale for dismissing his case.
Accordingly, Hinton's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied
and the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the
Sixth Circuit.
* The
Honorable Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr., United States District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee, sitting by
designation.