Kegley v. Sullivan County Criminal Court et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff's claim challenging his state court sentence is not cognizable under Section 1983, and the Court DISMISSES his Complaint. The Court GRANTED Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in form a pauperis [Doc. 4 ]; The Court ASSESSED Plaintiff the civil filing fee of $350.00. An appropriate judgment shall enter. Signed by District Judge Katherine A Crytzer on 9/24/2024. (BJL)*Mailed to John Alex Kegley and to the Custodian Of Inmate Accounts SULLIVAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER PO BOX 610 BLOUNTVILLE, TN 37617.*Sent to the Court's Financial Deputy Clerks. Modified on 9/24/2024 (BJL).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
JOHN ALEX KEGLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SULLIVAN COUNTY CRIMINAL
COURT and JAMES FRANKLIN
GOODWIN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

2:24-CV-034-KAC-CRW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate in the Sullivan County Detention Center, has filed (1) a complaint for
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Doc. 1] and (2) a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
[Doc. 4]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 4] and DISMISSES this action because Plaintiff’s Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Section 1983.
I.

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a prisoner bringing a civil action may

apply for permission to file suit without prepaying the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). It
appears from Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 4] that he cannot pay
the filing fee in one lump sum. Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court GRANTS the
Motion [Doc. 4].
Plaintiff is ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00. The Court DIRECTS the custodian
of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account to submit to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, 220 West Depot
Street, Greeneville, Tennessee 37743, as an initial partial payment, whichever is the greater of: (a)

twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly deposits to Plaintiff’s inmate trust account; or (b)
twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly balance in his inmate trust account for the six-month
period preceding the filing of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A) and (B). Thereafter, the
custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account is directed to submit twenty percent (20%) of
Plaintiff’s preceding monthly income (or income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account for the
preceding month), but only when such monthly income exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the full
filing fee of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) has been
paid to the Clerk. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
To ensure compliance with this fee-collection procedure, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk
to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the custodian of inmate accounts at the institution
where Plaintiff is now confined. The Court also DIRECTS the Clerk to furnish a copy of this
Memorandum and Order to the Court’s financial deputy. This Memorandum and Order shall be
placed in Plaintiff’s prison file and follow him if he is transferred to another correctional
institution.
II.

COMPLAINT SCREENING
A.

Screening Standard

Under the PLRA, a district court must screen a prisoner complaint and sua sponte dismiss
any claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or are against a defendant
who is immune. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Benson v. O’Brian, 179 F.3d
1014 (6th Cir. 1999). The dismissal standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) “governs dismissals for
failure state a claim under [28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A] because the relevant statutory
language tracks the language in Rule 12(b)(6)” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hill v.
2

Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus, to survive an initial review under the PLRA,
a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
Allegations that give rise to a mere possibility that a plaintiff might later establish
undisclosed facts supporting recovery are not well-pled and do not state a plausible claim.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570. Further, formulaic and conclusory recitations of the elements of
a claim that are not supported by specific facts are insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681. However, the Supreme Court has instructed that courts should liberally
construe pro se pleadings filed in civil rights cases and hold them to a less stringent standard than
“formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
B.

Analysis

In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that because one of his state court sentences was to be
served “‘coterminous’” with a federal sentence for the same offense and that federal sentence has
expired, the state court “case . . . should be vacated” [Doc. 1 at 3-4]. As relief, Plaintiff seeks
correction of his state court sentence and argues that he should only be serving a four-year sentence
for a separate state court case [Id. at 5].
While Plaintiff’s Complaint is not clear, it appears that he seeks to challenge and/or vacate
a state court sentence that he is currently serving. However, the exclusive federal remedy for a
prisoner to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement is a writ of habeas corpus. See
Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500
(1973)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim challenging his state court sentence is not cognizable under
Section 1983, and the Court DISMISSES his Complaint.

3

III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above:
1. The Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. 4];
2. The Court ASSESSED Plaintiff the civil filing fee of $350.00;
3. The Court DIRECTED the custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account to submit
the filing fee to the Clerk in the manner set for above;
4. The Court DIRECTED the Clerk to provide a copy of this Memorandum and Order
to the custodian of inmate accounts at the institution where Plaintiff is now confined
and to the Court’s financial deputy;
5. Even liberally construing the Complaint in favor of Plaintiff, it fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted under Section 1983. Accordingly, the Court
DISMISSES this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.

Further, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith
and would be totally frivolous. See Fed. R. App. P. 24. Should Plaintiff file a notice of appeal, he
is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24.
An appropriate judgment shall enter.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
/s/ Katherine A. Crytzer
KATHERINE A. CRYTZER
United States District Judge

4