Henderson v. Lee County Circuit Court et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 13 Judgment. Signed by Neal B. Biggers on 7/28/11. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSPPI
EASTERN DIVISION

RONNIE WAYNE HENDERSON

PLAINTIFF
NO. l:llCV148-B-V

V.

LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the covrt sua sponte for consideration of dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. $$

1915(e)(2)and 1915(A). The Plaintiff, who is cunently incarcerated, filed this complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 attempting to challenge the calculation of his sentence. The Piaintiff claims that
an enor in the state court sentencing orders has resulted in his continued incarceration beyond the

termination ofhis sentence. He also takes issue with the amount ofrestitution that has been ordered.
For these perceived constitutional violations, the Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages.

After carefully considering the contents of the pro se complaint and giving it the liberal
construction requiredby Haines v. Kerner,414U.S.

5

l9 (1972), this court has come to the following

conclusion.

Section 1983 Is Not Appropriate Method to Challenge a Conviction

Any challenge to the fact or duration ofa prisoner's confinement is properly treated as a
habeas corpus mafter, whereas challenges to conditions ofconfinement may proceed under $ 1983.

Jackson v. Torres,720

F

.2d 877 , 879 (5th

cir. 1983). The relief

he places upon the action is not the goveming

sought by the prisoner or the label

factor. Johnson v. Hardy,60l

F

.2d,172,174 (5th cir.

1979). The rule which the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit follows in determining whether a
prisoner must first obtain habeas corpus relief before bringing a $ 1983 action is simple: "if a
favorable determination would not automatically entitle the prisoner to accelerated release, the
proper vehicle for suit is $ 1983.

If it would

so entitle him, he must first get a habeas corpus

judgment." Clarkev.Stalder,121F.3d222,226(5thCn.097),reh,gdenied,l33F.3d,g40(1997)

(citingOrellanav. Kyte,65F.3d29,31 (5thCir. 1995),cert. denied, ll6

S.

Ct.736, 133 L. Ed.2d

686 (iee6)).
The Plaintiff must first obtain habeas corpus relief before pursuing damages in a g 1983
action. See Heckv. Humphrey, 512U .S. 477 (1994). A cause ofaction under 42 U.S.C. g 1983 does

not accrue until the plaintiffs conviction or sentence has been invalidated. Id. at 489-91. The
Plaintiffmakes no allegation that his conviction has been called into question. The $ 1983 complaint
is, thus, premature.
Even if the court were to construe this as a 28 U.S.C. $ 2254 petition, the

Plaintiff must first

exhaust remedies available to him in state court. See 28 U.S.C. $ 2254(b)(1) and (c); Miss. Code

Ann. $$ 99-39- I et seq. There is no proof or allegation that the Plaintiffhas exhausted his claims.
Accordingly, in either case, the Plaintiff

s

complaint is premature and would be subject to dismissal

for these reasons. The complaint will be dismissed.

A final judgment iyaccordance with this opinion will be entered.
THIS

4 tJ)
the 2a day olJuly. 201 l.

SENIOR U.S.