
    Scott Alan COZENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WOODWARD COUNTY OKLAHOMA, ex rel. The WOODWARD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; Woodward County District Court; Woodward County Sheriff's Department, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-6019.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Aug. 9, 2012.
    Marvin Michael Arnett, Arnett Law Firm, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Christopher James Collins, Esq., Jenny L. Evans, Esq., Dustin J. Hopson, Jamison Whitson, Collins Zorn Jones & Wagner, John David Hadden, Esq., Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, McKAY and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 84(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 complaint. In this complaint, Plaintiff alleged his constitutional rights were violated when he received a “flat” state court sentence under which he received no good time credits, allegedly contrary to Oklahoma law. The district court concluded that Plaintiff could not state a valid claim for relief under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his state court sentence.

On appeal, Plaintiff contends Heck is inapplicable because his § 1983 claim was based on unconstitutional procedures, similar to the § 1983 claim that was allowed in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554-55, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). However, Heck applies whenever “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364 regardless of whether the claim is labeled as procedural or substantive. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645-46, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997). The claim in Wolff could proceed under § 1983 because it “did not call into question the lawfulness of the plaintiffs continuing confinement,” Heck, 512 U.S. at 483, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (emphasis omitted), and it is thus readily distinguishable from the instant case. In this case, success on Plaintiffs § 1983 claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence, and therefore the district court correctly dismissed the complaint under Heck.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     