Robinson v. Andrews et al
OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 215 Motion for Immediate Release. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Civil Case No. 14-11987
Honorable Linda V. Parker
STEPHEN ANDREWS, et al.,
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
On May 9, 2014, Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action against
thirty-two defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case has proceeded to a
final judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, with the Judgment
entered on August 14, 2017. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for
Immediate Release” in which he appears to be challenging his continued custody in
the Michigan Department of Corrections pursuant to state court convictions. (ECF
No. 215.) Plaintiff’s request for relief is more appropriately brought as a separate
habeas corpus action.1 See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (holding
that, when state prisoners are challenging the very fact or duration of their physical
Plaintiff has filed several federal habeas corpus petitions in this District. It is
unclear to the Court whether any of those petitions addressed the convictions
resulting in the confinement challenged in his pending motion.
imprisonment, and the relief they seek is a determination that they are entitled to
immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, their sole federal
remedy is a writ of habeas corpus).
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Immediate Release (ECF No.
215) is DENIED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 13, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, September 13, 2017, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
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?