Joseph L. Bolden v. Kecia Winchester

BLD-289 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-1754
___________
JOSEPH L. BOLDEN,
Appellant
v.
KECIA WINCHESTER; TASK OFFICER HEATHER NLN;
STATE OF DELAWARE, Superior Court; JANE DOE;
JANE DOE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil No. 07-CV-00756)
District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
September 18, 2008
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 5, 2009 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Joseph L. Bolden appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, dismissing his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and

-- 1 of 3 --

As we write primarily for Bolden’s benefit, we will not repeat all of the allegations of1
the complaint. It appears, from statements in Bolden’s notice of appeal, that the District
Court properly understood his claims.
2
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We will similarly dismiss the appeal.
Bolden filed a complaint and three separate documents that the District Court
construed as supplements to the complaint. The District Court carefully considered all
four documents, and determined that Bolden was complaining essentially that he was
improperly convicted for a probation violation for being “dirty” when in actuality he had
completed a drug treatment program. Bolden also complained of the process used for his1
conviction and sentence, and he requested compensation for the time he had missed work
due to his incarceration.
The District Court properly held that Bolden’s sole remedy for challenging his
conviction and/or sentence is by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (challenge that affects fact or duration of
confinement must be brought in habeas petition). We further agree that to the extent
Bolden seeks compensation for what he believes was an unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, he must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed,
expunged, or declared invalid. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). It is not
enough that Bolden, as he states in his notice of appeal, believes that the conviction is
invalid; it must have been found invalid by a court of law.
We agree with the District Court that Bolden’s complaint was legally frivolous,

-- 2 of 3 --

and we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
3

-- 3 of 3 --