Thomas v. Koontz et al

Filing 6

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and the complaint will be DISMISSED. Signed by Judge William C Griesbach on 12/13/2010 (cc: all counsel, via US mail to Richard Thomas) (Griesbach, William)

Thomas v. Koontz et al

Doc. 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RICHARD A. THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. ELIZABETH KOONTZ, Defendant. Case No. 10-C-1074

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that on his mandatory release date he was placed on electronic monitoring and forced to locate in a halfway house. He further alleges he is forced to receive involuntary treatment of an unspecified nature. Since the filing of the complaint, Plaintiff has been released from custody, and so the filing fee provisions of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") do not apply. I find Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis ("IFP") status and therefore waive the filing fee. Plaintiff's complaint, however, will be dismissed. As explained in Case No. 10-C-1073, which Plaintiff filed the same day, the rule of Heck v. Humphrey prohibits resort to § 1983 unless the underlying custody has been invalidated. Here, it is apparent that the conditions Plaintiff is complaining of are aspects of his confinement. As Judge Crabb concluded in a very similar action: Plaintiff's complaint does nothing more than challenge his current confinement. He alleges that his parole agent, her supervisor and the Department of Corrections placed him on house arrest and electronic monitoring when he was released from prison on his mandatory release date. . . . such challenges may not be brought pursuant to § 1983. Challenges to plaintiff's custody may not proceed in federal

Dockets.Justia.com

court until plaintiff has exhausted his state judicial remedies and then only as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Maldonado v. Johnson, 2009 WL 3254022, *1 (W.D. Wis. 2009). As Judge Crabb further noted, "[a]lthough plaintiff is not in `custody' in the sense of being in prison, conditions of parole such as plaintiff's house arrest and electronic monitoring are still forms of `custody' that must be challenged in the context of a habeas petition, not a § 1983 action." Id. Accordingly, the complaint will be DISMISSED. GRANTED and the filing fee is waived. SO ORDERED this 13th day of December, 2010. The motion to proceed IFP is

s/ William C. Griesbach William C. Griesbach United States District Judge

2