Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00324/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00324-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES T. JORDAN, )

AIS #124614, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-324-TMH

) [WO]

)

KATHY HOLT, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is before the court on a complaint filed by James T.

Jordan [“Jordan”], a state inmate, in which he challenges the constitutionality of his

confinement pursuant to sentences imposed upon him in 1979 and 1980 by the Circuit

Court of Cherokee County, Alabama and the Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Alabama.

1

This is the second such action filed by Jordan in which he challenges the constitutionality

of his confinement on these sentences. See Jordan v. State of Alabama, et al., Case No.

2:10-CV-968-TMH-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2010).

In the instant complaint, Jordan argues he is improperly incarcerated on the

 The evidentiary materials submitted by the plaintiff demonstrate these sentences total seventeen 1

(17) years of incarceration. Plaintiff’s Attachment to Complaint (Inmate Summary Sheet) - Court Doc. No.

1-1 at 1. These materials likewise establish Jordan was not incarcerated on these sentences from October

2, 1981 until February 21. 2007. Id. 

Case 2:11-cv-00324-TMH-TFM Document 4 Filed 05/03/11 Page 1 of 6
aforementioned Alabama sentences as he should have received credit for time served on

these sentences during his incarceration within the Georgia Department of Corrections on

separate sentences imposed by the State of Georgia because he sought extradition to

Alabama for the purpose of facing a 1981 escape charge levied by the Circuit Court of

Cherokee County, Alabama. Plaintiff’s Complaint - Court Doc. No. 1 at 3. Based on this

2

flawed reasoning, Jordan maintains his Alabama sentences expired on December 3, 1996.

Jordan seeks declaratory relief and his release from incarceration. Id. at 4.

Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of this case prior

to service of process is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3

Jordan acknowledges he removed himself from the custody of Cherokee County law enforcement 2

officials on October 2, 1981, which resulted in his being charged with escape. On October 9, 1981, “the

plaintiff was arrested in Cobb County, Georgia” on additional criminal charges relative to various offenses

committed in Georgia. Plaintiff’s Complaint - Court Doc. No. 1 at 3. In his prior civil action, Jordan

identified these charges as kidnapping and aggravated assault (3 counts). Jordan v. State of Alabama, et al., 

Case No. 2:10-CV-968-TMH-TFM - Court Doc. No. 1-1 at 3. The State of Georgia imposed convictions

upon Jordan for these offenses for which he served twenty-five years in the custody of the Georgia

Department of Corrections. Id. The documents filed herein demonstrate the Circuit Court of Cherokee

County, Alabama dismissed the 1981 escape charge on September 29, 1989. Plaintiff’s Attachment to the

Complaint - Court Doc. No. 1-1 at 4-5. On February 21, 2007, Jordan was paroled by the State of Georgia

and returned to the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections to complete service of his 1979 and

1980 sentences from Cherokee and DeKalb counties. 

The court entered an order granting Jordan leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this cause of 3

action. Order of April 28, 2011 - Court Doc. No. 3. Consequently, Jordan must have his complaint screened

in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) which requires the court to dismiss a

prisoner’s civil action prior to service of process if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious,

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who

is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). The claims presented by Jordan fail to set

forth a proper basis on which relief may be granted and are therefore subject to dismissal on this ground.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). However, it likewise appears the claims presented by Jordan are due to be

dismissed as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) due to this court’s dismissal of Jordan’s previous

civil action. However, in light of the determination the claims provide no basis for relief at this time, the

court will limit its dismissal to this basis. 

2

Case 2:11-cv-00324-TMH-TFM Document 4 Filed 05/03/11 Page 2 of 6
II. DISCUSSION

Jordan asserts he isimproperly incarcerated on sentencesimposed in 1979 and 1980

by the Circuit Court of Cherokee County, Alabama and DeKalb County, Alabama as these

sentences have expired. Thus, the claims presented to this court go to the fundamental

4

legality of the length of Jordan’s current incarceration and, therefore, provide no basis for

relief at this time. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a claim for damages challenging the legality

of a prisoner’s conviction or confinement is not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

“unless and until the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged, invalidated, or

impugned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus” and complaints containing such claims

must therefore be dismissed. 512 U.S. at 483-489. Under Heck, the relevant inquiry is

“whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction orsentence [made the basis of his current incarceration].” 512 U.S. at 487. The

Court emphasized that “habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a ... prisoner who

challenges” the basis for his confinement “even though such a claim may come within the

literal terms of § 1983” and, based on the foregoing, concluded that Heck’s complaint was

The state court records submitted by Jordan do not support his argument; instead, these documents

4

refute Jordan’s allegation regarding the expiration of his Alabama sentences. Upon a thorough review of the

records presented, it appears to this court that due to Jordan’s escapes from custody while confined on the

Alabama convictions and the fact the Alabama courts did not order the sentences imposed for such

convictions to run concurrent with the Georgia sentences the challenged Alabama sentences will not expire

until January of 2022. 

3

Case 2:11-cv-00324-TMH-TFM Document 4 Filed 05/03/11 Page 3 of 6
due to be dismissed as no cause of action existed under section 1983. 512 U.S. at 481. In

so doing, the Court rejected the lower court’s reasoning that a section 1983 action should

be construed as a habeas corpus action.

In Balisok, the Court concluded that a state prisoner’s “claim[s] for declaratory [and

injunctive] relief and money damages, ... that necessarily imply the invalidity of the

punishment imposed, is not cognizable under § 1983 ...” unless the prisoner can

demonstrate that the challenged action has previously been invalidated. 520 U.S. at 648.

Moreover, the Court determined that this is true not only when a prisoner challenges the

judgment as a substantive matter but also when “the nature of the challenge to the

procedures could be such as necessarily to imply the invalidity of the judgment.” Id. at

645. The Court reiterated the position taken in Heck that the “sole remedy in federal court”

for a prisoner challenging the constitutionality of a term of incarceration is a petition for

writ of habeas corpusfiled in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Balisok,

520 U.S. at 645. Additionally, the Court “reemphasize[d] ... that a claim either is

cognizable under § 1983 and should immediately go forward, or is not cognizable and

should be dismissed.” Id. at 649.

Jordan challenges the constitutionality of his confinement with respect to the length

of his current incarceration pursuant to sentences imposed upon him by the Circuit Court

of Cherokee County, Alabama on December 3, 1979 and the Circuit Court of DeKalb

County, Alabama on March 3, 1980. Plaintiff’s Attachment to the Complaint (Inmate

4

Case 2:11-cv-00324-TMH-TFM Document 4 Filed 05/03/11 Page 4 of 6
Summary Sheet) - Court Doc. No. 1-1 at 1. A judgment in favor of Jordan on this complaint

would necessarily imply the invalidity of the length of his incarceration. It is clear from the

records of this court that the sentences and resulting confinement about which the plaintiff

complains have not been invalidated in an appropriate proceeding. Consequently, the

instant collateral attack is prohibited and subject to summary dismissal in accordance with

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Balisok, 520 U.S. at 645; Heck, 512 U.S.

at 481; Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-490 (1973).

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be dismissed without prejudice prior to service of processin accordance with the provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It is further

ORDERED that on or before May 20, 2011 the parties may file objections to this

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised

that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

5

Case 2:11-cv-00324-TMH-TFM Document 4 Filed 05/03/11 Page 5 of 6
District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981,

en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit

handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 3rd day of May, 2011.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 2:11-cv-00324-TMH-TFM Document 4 Filed 05/03/11 Page 6 of 6