Davis v. Walker et al

Filing 3

ORDER directing Davis to file an amended pleading - either an amended 1983 complaint or a habeas corpus petition - by 9/15/2016. If he doesn't, then his case will be dismissed without prejudice. The Court directs the Clerk to send Davis a 1983 complaint form and a 2254 habeas petition form with a copy of this Order. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/16/2016. (jak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION PLAINTIFF DAMEON DAVIS ADC #153194 v. No. 3:16-cv-195-DPM CURTIS WALKER, Prosecuting Attorney, Mississippi County; CHARLES E. ELLIS, Public Defender, Mississippi County DEFENDANTS ORDER 1. Davis has filed a pro se complaint against his former public defender and a Mississippi County prosecutor. NQ 2. He says they violated his constitutional rights during his state criminal proceedings. And he wants either money or to be released from prison. NQ 2 at 8. 2. The Court must sort out what kind of case this is. Davis can't pursue both damages and release in the same lawsuit. If he wants to sue for damages, then a § 1983 complaint is appropriate. (His claims may still be barred by other federal law, though. E.g., Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)). If, on the other hand, Davis wants to challenge his conviction and try to get out of prison, then he must file a habeas corpus petition. Freiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 3. The Court needs clarification from Davis. He must file an amended pleading-either an amended§ 1983 complaint or a habeas corpus petition- by 15 September 2016. If he doesn't, then his case will be dismissed without prejudice. LOCAL RULE 5.5(c)(2). 4. The Court directs the Clerk to send Davis a § 1983 complaint form and a § 2254 habeas petition form with a copy of this Order. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?