Orgain v. Tennessee Department of Corrections et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 7/9/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

CHARLES L. ORGAIN
Plaintiff,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

v.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, et al.
Defendants.

No. 3:13-0648
Judge Campbell

M E M O R A N D U M
The

plaintiff,

proceeding

pro

se,

is

an

inmate

at

the

Montgomery County Jail in Clarksville, Tennessee. He brings this
action

pursuant

to

42

U.S.C.

§

1983

against

the

Tennessee

Department of Correction and the Tennessee Board of Probation and
Parole, seeking injunctive relief.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants have miscalculated
the time it will take for him to flatten out his sentence. More
specifically, the plaintiff claims that he is entitled to an
additional credit of five hundred fifty five (555) days towards the
completion of his sentence.
In essence, the plaintiff is asserting that he is entitled to
a shorter term of incarceration. An action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
however, is not the appropriate vehicle to pursue such a claim.
Rather, when a state prisoner seeks an immediate or speedier
1

release from custody, he must pursue his claims in an action for
federal habeas corpus relief. Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475
(1973).
Given the liberal standard of review for pro se pleadings,
this Court could convert plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint to
a habeas corpus petition. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
(1972). However, a great deal of information is required for a
habeas corpus petition that is not supplied in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint. Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. In addition, a habeas
corpus petitioner is required to exhaust state court remedies
before seeking relief in the federal courts. Rose v. Lundy, 455
U.S. 509 (1982). In this regard, there has been no showing that the
plaintiff has ever presented his claim to the state courts for
review prior to the filing of this complaint. Therefore, it would
not be appropriate for the Court to treat the instant complaint as
a habeas corpus petition at this time.
After careful review of the complaint, the Court finds that
the plaintiff has no arguable basis in law or fact which would
entitle him to § 1983 relief. The Court further finds that the
complaint lacks sufficient information to justify its conversion to
a habeas corpus petition. Consequently, this action is frivolous
within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Neitzke v. Williams,
109 S.Ct. 1827, 1832-1833 (1989).

2

A district court possesses the authority to dismiss frivolous
actions. Brooks v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th Cir.1985).
Accordingly, this action shall be dismissed without prejudice to
the plaintiff's right to proceed with his claim via habeas corpus
after exhausting all available state court remedies.
An appropriate order will be entered.

____________________________
Todd Campbell
United States District Judge

3