Thomas v. Zofra et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER For the reasons outlined within, Thomas' claims seeking habeas corpus relief are SEVERED and DISMISSED without prejudice and only his Section 1983 claims retained in this action. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 10/6/17. (SAC ) *Order placed in first class mail to pro se Plaintiff.

FILED
2017 Oct-06 PM 03:28
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
JAMES EARL THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ZYNNIA ZOFRA, in her individual
and official capacity, and
BEVERLY WHITE, in her individual
and official capacity.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

7:17-cv-00719-LSC

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff, James Earl Thomas’ (“Thomas”) pro se
complaint (doc. 1) filed on May 4, 2017, seeking injunctive relief for violations of
his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A number of Thomas’ claims in his pro se
complaint are duplicative of claims asserted in his separate habeas corpus action filed
on May 18, 2017. See Thomas v. White, Case 7:17-cv-00817-LSC at 2. For the
following reasons, Thomas’ habeas claims within his Section 1983 complaint are
due to be SEVERED and DISMISSED without prejudice and this Court maintains
jurisdiction solely over the Section 1983. (Doc. 1.)

Page 1 of 3

Thomas has sought habeas relief on the same grounds in a separation action.
The action is still pending. See Thomas v. White, 7:17-cv-00817-LSC at 3. Thomas
claims he is being held in violation of the 14th Amendment because the Tuscaloosa
Circuit Court did not allow him to cross-examine his accuser or present evidence in
his defense. He also claims the evidence was insufficient for any rational trier of
fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because “there was no evidence
presented.” See id. at 2-3.
Thomas presented similar claims in his Section 1983 complaint. (Doc. 1.) “I
was not given an opportunity to cross-examine my accuser. I was not given an
opportunity to present evidence. I am being held in violation of the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Doc. 1 at 5; see also Doc. 1 at 7.)
The Section 1983 civil rights complaint is not the proper action in which to assert
habeas corpus claims. To the extent that claims within Thomas’ complaint (doc. 1)
challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, they must be construed as habeas
corpus claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. 1 at 6 (“delaying my time of
getting out of being [sic] release”); See also Johnson v. Hardy, 601 F.2d 172, 174
(5th Cir. 1979 1) (“any challenge to the fact or duration of a prisoner's confinement
1

Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before the close of business on September
30, 1981 are binding on this Court. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.
1981) (en banc). See also Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp. No. 12-15548 n.5 (11th Cir. 2017).
Page 2 of 3

is properly treated as a habeas corpus matter, whereas challenges to conditions of
confinement may proceed under Section 1983”)).
Accordingly, Thomas’ claims seeking habeas corpus relief are hereby
SEVERED and DISMISSED without prejudice and only his Section 1983 claims
retained in this action.
DONE and ORDERED on October 6, 2017.

_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
190685

Page 3 of 3