Lush v. Hill

Filing 7

ORDER denying 6 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/1/2010. (eds),(ps)

Lush v. Hill

Doc. 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------W ILL IAM STEPHEN LUSH, II, ORDER Plaintiff, 1 0 -c v -6 4 -s lc 1 v. JU D G E BELINDA HILL, D efendan t. --------------------------------------------O n March 11, 2010, I denied the request of plaintiff William Stephen Lush, II, for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on a claim for injunctive relief that his criminal conviction in a state court in Texas was unconstitutional. Dkt. #4. Now before the court is plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of that decision. Dkt. #6. Plaintiff's motion will be denied because he has not shown that this court relied on a manifest error of law or fact in dismissing his complaint. As I explained in the dismissal ord er, the doctrine of judicial immunity bars plaintiff from raising any claims in a civil law suit against defendant Belinda Hill for her judicial acts. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9

1

For the purpose of issuing this order only, I am assuming jurisdiction over the case.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

(1 9 9 1). Further, the proper remedy for challenging the legality of a state court conviction an d sentence is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after plaintiff has exhausted the remedies available to him in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff William Stephen Lush's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Entered this 1st day of July, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s/ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

2