JERNIGAN v. EDWARDS et al

Filing 8

ORDER vacating 6 Order and 7 Judgment; granting 5 Motion to Amend filed by THOMAS F JERNIGAN; granting 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by THOMAS F JERNIGAN; and dismissing without prejudice 5 Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. Clerk of Court is directed to provide Plaintiff with a form habeas application. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 5/8/2015. (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
THOMAS F. JERNIGAN,
Plaintiff,
VS.
Judge JOHN KENT EDWARDS, JR,
and LOWNDES COUNTY STATE
COURT,
Defendants.
_________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 7:15-cv-0067-HL-TQL

AMENDED ORDER1
Petitioner Thomas F. Jernigan, an inmate currently confined at the Lowndes County Jail, in
Valdosta Georgia, filed the above-captioned proceeding in this Court seeking relief under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. In this action, Plaintiff challenges the validity of his current confinement and
seeks relief in the form of both money damages and an order for his release. Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint, 2 however, raises legal issues only considered in a habeas action.

See Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (“[H]abeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state
prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier
release.”). Plaintiff cannot challenge his conviction or sentence under § 1983 unless he first
shows that his conviction or sentence has already been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by
executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court's
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Id. Even when liberally construed in his favor, Plaintiff’s
1 The Court’s Order (Doc. 6) is hereby VACATED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).
2 Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 5) is GRANTED, and the Complaint is deemed amended as of the date of
Plaintiff’s Motion.

1

Complaint does not include any allegation suggesting that his conviction or sentence has been
reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. (See Docs. 1, 5)
Plaintiff’s § 1983 complaint is accordingly DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
state a claim, see 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1), and his pending Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 2) shall be GRANTED only for the purpose of dismissal.
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to invalidate his conviction or sentence, he may recast his
claims on a standard application for habeas relief under 42 U.S.C. § 2254 and file it as a new action
in this Court. The Clerk of Court is thus DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a form habeas
application. Plaintiff is advised, however, that § 2254 has an exhaustion requirement. A state
prisoner is required (with few exceptions) to “exhaust available state judicial remedies before a
federal court will entertain his petition for habeas corpus.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275
(1971). “A failure to exhaust occurs . . . when a petitioner has not ‘fairly presented’ every issue
raised in his federal petition to the state's highest court, either on direct appeal or on collateral
review.” Pope v. Secretary for Dept. of Corr., 680 F.3d 1271, 1284 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal
alterations omitted); Mason v. Allen, 605 F.3d 1114, 1119 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Thus, if
Plaintiff files a habeas petition in this Court prior to exhausting all available state remedies, his
petition will also likely be dismissed without prejudice to allow for such exhaustion. See Gore v.
Crews, 720 F.3d 811, 815 (11th Cir. 2013).
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of May, 2015.
s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
jlr

2