David T. Yarborough v. DETECTIVE MONROE HUDSON, DOC Commissioner

CLD-209
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 23-2346
___________
DAVID T. YARBOROUGH,
Appellant
v.
DETECTIVE MONROE HUDSON, DOC Commissioner;
ROBERT MAY, Warden-JTVCC;
KATHLEEN JENNINGS, DE Attorney General
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-22-cv-01573)
District Judge: Honorable Colm F. Connolly
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 7, 2023
Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 28, 2023)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se Appellant David Yarborough, a prisoner at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center, was found guilty of several prison policy violations and was
disciplined with confinement to his quarters for 10 days, loss of privileges for 60 days,
and the loss of 90 days’ worth of good time credits. Twelve days after being found
guilty, Yarborough—who had yet to file an appeal—received notice that his appeal had
been denied. He filed a grievance appealing these disciplinary measures and his inability
to appeal them directly. He then filed a complaint in the District Court under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 arguing that these actions violated his due process rights. Yarborough does not
seek money damages, but rather an order mandating the reversal of the disciplinary action
and the restoration of his good time credits. Upon review under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(b), the District Court dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review
over a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). See Allah v. Seiverling,
229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We must dismiss the appeal if it is legally frivolous.
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
does not constitute binding precedent.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We may take summary action when no substantial issue
is presented on appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
To the extent Yarborough seeks restoration of good time credits, a § 1983
complaint is the wrong vehicle. The only way to obtain such relief in federal court is “by
writ of habeas corpus, with the concomitant requirement of exhausting state remedies.”
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554 (1974) (cleaned up).
To the extent Yarborough seeks other relief, such as a declaration that the
disciplinary action was invalid, it is barred by Edwards v. Balisok because his prevailing
would “necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed.” See Edwards v.
Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994)).
Accordingly, the District Court correctly dismissed the complaint, and we will
summarily affirm.

-- 3 of 3 --