Walker v. Epps et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 16 Final Judgment. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 2/9/15. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
JOHNATHAN WALKER

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 1:14CV201-DMB-JMV

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the Court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Johnathan Walker,
who challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court notes that, for
purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this suit.
Walker alleges that he is currently being incarcerated for an offense for which he has already
completed his sentence. For the reasons set forth below, the instant case will be dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the court will open a habeas corpus case
based upon the allegations in the instant complaint. In the Heck v. Humphrey case, the Supreme Court
clarified the interrelationship between actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and habeas corpus proceedings.
512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994). In Heck, the Court emphasized that habeas
corpus remedies need not be exhausted before proceeding with a claim under § 1983. 114 S. Ct. at
2369.

Rather, a § 1983 damages claim that calls into question the lawfulness of conviction,

confinement, or otherwise demonstrates a conviction or confinement’s invalidity is not cognizable
under § 1983 until such time as a § 1983 plaintiff is able to:
prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by
executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a
conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.

Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. at 2372; see also Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 283 (5th Cir. 1994).
Only if the court finds that Plaintiff’s successful § 1983 suit “[would] not demonstrate the invalidity of
any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff,” should the § 1983 action be allowed to
proceed. See Mackey v. Dickson, 47 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 1995).
In the present case, Plaintiff’s success on his claim for damages would necessarily draw into
question the validity of his conviction or sentence. Therefore, Plaintiff must “demonstrate that the
conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Heck, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. Walker has made no
such showing; therefore, the instant case is based upon a meritless legal theory and will be dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989).
Walker’s allegations do, however, state a claim for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2254. As such, the Clerk of the Court will open a habeas corpus case using the complaint from this
case—with a filing date as of the date the instant complaint was filed. Additionally, the Clerk of the
Court will provide Plaintiff with the necessary forms to file a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. §
2254. Plaintiff must complete and return these forms within 45 days of the date of this order. Failure
to do so will lead to the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to comply with an order of
the court.

SO ORDERED, this 9th day of February, 2015.

/s/ Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2