Hayes v. Unknown Name of Judge
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION dismissing this action for the reasons set forth herein. This dismissal will count as a "strike". A final judgment will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 3/19/15 (copy mailed to Gregory Hayes # 146872, E.M.C.F., 10641 HWY 80 WEST, MERIDIAN, MS 39307) (LWE)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
GREGORY HAYES, #146872
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-904-TSL-RHW
JOHN DOE
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This cause is before the court, sua sponte, for
consideration of dismissal.
Plaintiff Hayes, an inmate currently
incarcerated at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility
(EMCF), filed this pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis on
March 17, 2015.
See Order [8].
Upon liberal review of
plaintiff’s complaint [1] and response [7], the court has reached
the following conclusions.
I.
Background
Plaintiff is an inmate of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections (MDOC).
According to the online records of MDOC,
plaintiff is serving a five-year term of imprisonment for a
sexual battery conviction and a 17-year term of imprisonment for
an armed robbery conviction, both from Madison County.
See
www.mdoc.state.ms.us/InmateDetails.asp?PassedId=146872.
The named defendant is John Doe, the sentencing judge for
plaintiff’s criminal convictions in Madison County Circuit Court.
Plaintiff asserts complaints regarding the validity of his
criminal convictions and sentences.
Specifically, plaintiff
claims that he was improperly tried as an adult, that his speedy
trial rights were violated, that his plea was involuntary, that
he is innocent of the crimes, that he should have been sentenced
to a mental hospital instead of a prison,1 and that his sentence
is excessive.
As relief, plaintiff seeks his release from
incarceration and monetary damages.
II.
Analysis
The in forma pauperis statute mandates dismissal “at any
time” if the court determines an action “is frivolous or
malicious” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Since the
court has permitted plaintiff Hayes to proceed in forma pauperis
in this action, his complaint is subject to the case screening
procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
A.
Release from incarceration
Initially, the court notes that the appropriate legal
vehicle to attack unconstitutional prison administrative
procedures or conditions of confinement is 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Cook
See
v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice Transitional Planning
Dep’t, 37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1994).
1
In contrast, habeas
The court notes that the programs offered at EMCF include
psychoactive services, therapeutic community, specialized group
therapy, specialized individual counseling, and psychiatric review
every 90 days. See www.mdoc.state.ms.us/division_of_institutions.htm.
2
corpus provides the exclusive federal remedy available to a state
prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his confinement and
seeking a speedier or immediate release from incarceration.
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973);
see also
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005)(internal quotations
omitted)(finding a “prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983
action to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement”).
Plaintiff must pursue claims that affect his eligibility for, or
entitlement to, accelerated release through habeas corpus.
Cook,
37 F.3d at 168 (citing Johnson v. Pfeiffer, 821 F.2d 1120, 1123
(5th Cir. 1987));
see also Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820-
21 (5th Cir. 1997)(release from incarceration is not available as
relief in a suit filed pursuant to § 1983).
Plaintiff’s claims
regarding the validity of his criminal convictions challenge the
fact or duration of his confinement, and thus are habeas in
nature.
Therefore, plaintiff’s request for release from
incarceration will be dismissed from this § 1983 case, without
prejudice.2
B.
Request for monetary damages
Defendant, as the presiding judge for plaintiff’s criminal
cases, enjoys absolute immunity from damages when performing acts
2
The court does not reach a determination of the viability of any
possible habeas claims; nonetheless, the clerk is directed to mail
plaintiff a packet of habeas corpus forms for state inmates
challenging their imprisonment under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
3
within his judicial capacity.
284 (5th Cir. 1994).
See Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279,
Judicial immunity can be overcome only by a
showing that the actions complained of were non-judicial in
nature, or by showing that the actions were taken in the absence
of all jurisdiction. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).
In determining whether a judge acted within the scope of his
judicial capacity, the court considers four factors: “(1) whether
the precise act complained of is a normal judicial function; (2)
whether the acts occurred in the courtroom or appropriate adjunct
spaces such as the judge’s chambers; (3) whether the controversy
centered around a case pending before the court; and (4) whether
the acts arose directly out of a visit to the judge in his
official capacity.”
Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510, 515 (5th Cir.
2005)(citing Malina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121, 1124 (5th Cir.
1993)).
In applying the four factors, it is clear that
defendant’s actions were “judicial in nature.”
Id. at 517.
Likewise, there are no claims that defendant lacked jurisdiction
over plaintiff’s criminal proceedings.
See Miss. Code Ann. §9-7-
81 (circuit court has original jurisdiction over state felony
prosecutions).
Therefore, defendant is entitled to absolute
immunity from the claims presented in this suit.
With that said, the court also finds that in the event
defendant is not entitled to absolute immunity, plaintiff’s
claims regarding the validity of his criminal convictions are
4
subject to dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
Under Heck, where a § 1983 claim for damages would “necessarily
imply” the invalidity of a conviction, such a claim is not
cognizable unless and until the plaintiff obtains a favorable
resolution of a challenge to his conviction.
Id. at 487; see
also Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284-85 (5th Cir. 1994).
If the court were to find in plaintiff’s favor and determine
that his criminal convictions are unconstitutional, it would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his current term of
imprisonment.
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that his
criminal convictions have been invalidated by any of the means
set forth in Heck.
Thus, plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages
are also barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
See Johnson v. McElveen,
101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996)(holding claims dismissed under
Heck are properly “dismissed with prejudice . . . until the Heck
conditions are met”).
III. Conclusion
The court has considered the pleadings and applicable law.
For the reasons stated, plaintiff’s request for release from
incarceration is properly pursued in a habeas corpus petition and
will be dismissed from this § 1983 case without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary damages will be dismissed as
seeking relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief
and as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B),
5
with prejudice.
See Boyd, 31 F. 3d at 285 (affirming frivolous
dismissal of § 1983 claim against trial judge based on absolute
immunity); Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 103 (5th Cir.
1996)(finding Heck barred claims are legally frivolous).
This
dismissal will count as a “strike” in accordance with the Prison
Litigation Reform Act.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
A final judgment in accordance with this memorandum opinion
will be entered.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 19th
day of March, 2015.
/s/Tom S. Lee
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?