Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00066/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHN STEPHEN COLEMAN, )

#229 809, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:13-CV-66-TMH

) [WO]

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Staton Correctional Facility located in Elmore,

Alabama, files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that rights, privileges, or immunities

afforded him under the Constitution or laws of the United States were abridged during his

criminal court proceedings which took place in May 2001 before the Circuit Court for

1

Bullock County, Alabama. Plaintiff brings this complaint against the State of Alabama,

Judge L.B. Smithart, Ben Reeves, Esq., and District Attorney Boyd Whigham. He requests

that the conviction and sentence on which he is incarcerated be reversed and vacated “or

whatever relief this court deems just.” (Doc. No. 1.)

The court has carefully reviewed the allegations contained in Plaintiff's complaint.

From that review, the court concludes that dismissal of the complaint prior to service of

 The court takes judicial notice of its own records which reflect that Petitioner is serving a 1

twenty year sentence following his conviction on May 23, 2002 for manslaughter entered against him by

the Circuit Court for Bullock County, Alabama. See Coleman v. Mosley, et al., Civil Action No. 2:06-

CV-669-MEF (M.D. Ala. 2008).

Case 2:13-cv-00066-TMH-TFM Document 4 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 5
process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

2

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff files the instant § 1983 complaint challenging matters associated with a 2002

conviction and sentence entered against him by the Circuit Court for Bullock County,

Alabama. Specifically, Plaintiff, who is white, complains that the State used its peremptory

challenges to exclude white people from his jury panel in violation of his right to equal

protection. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.)

3

With regard to Plaintiff’s desire to challenge his state court conviction and/or the

sentence imposed as a result of that judgment, a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

is not an appropriate remedy. Where a prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his

physical imprisonment and the relief sought is a determination that he is entitled to

immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, the inmate’s federal remedy

is by way of a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973)

(habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for prisoners attacking the validity of their conviction

 A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint 2

screened in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure

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).

 Interestingly, on appeal from the denial of his Rule 32 petition, A.R.Cr.P., Plaintiff challenged 3

trial counsel’s performance on the ground that he failed to object to the State’s use of 10 or 12

peremptory challenges to exclude black veniremembers. See Coleman v. Mosley, et al., Civil Action No.

2:06-CV-669-MEF at Doc. No. 7, Exh. A. 

2

Case 2:13-cv-00066-TMH-TFM Document 4 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 5
or confinement). Further, § 1983 action may not be used to challenge the fact of a plaintiff’s

state court criminal conviction and/or sentence. Rather, the proper vehicle for mounting such

a challenge would be the filing of a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

In filing this action, Plaintiff seeks his release from custody. The core of his claims

concern matters related to the validity and the legality of his current confinement. When the

effect of granting equitable relief under the civil rights statute would be to substitute a § 1983

action for a federal writ of habeas corpus challenging the basis for ongoing detention or for

a petition pursuant to § 2254 to attack a state court conviction, a prisoner fails to state a claim

under § 1983. See Eutzy v. Tesar, 880 F.2d 1010, 1011 (8 Cir. 1989); Preiser, 411 U.S. at

th

500. A plaintiff, therefore, cannot seek declaratory or injunctive relief relating to his

confinement and/or conviction in a § 1983 action. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641,

4

648 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-89 (1994); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500; St.

Germaine v. Isenhower, 98 F. Supp.2d 1366, 1373(S.D. Fla. 2000).

In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint is due to be

dismissed without prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

5

 Compensatory and punitive damages are available in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action but not by way 4

of a writ of habeas corpus or a § 2254 petition. To recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional

confinement in a civil rights action, a plaintiff must prove that his conviction or sentence has been

reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into

question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck, 512 U.S. 486-87. 

 Even if Plaintiff’s complaint was properly before the court, his claims against the named 5

defendants would be subject to dismissal under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and/or

(iii). See Forrester v. White, 484 U. S. 219, 227-229 (1988); Paisey v. Vitale in and for Broward

3

Case 2:13-cv-00066-TMH-TFM Document 4 Filed 02/07/13 Page 3 of 5
II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. Plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of his conviction and/or sentence be

DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and

2. The complaint be DISMISSED prior to service of process.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before February 21, 2013 Plaintiff may file an objection to the

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

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is 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 recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge'sreportshall bar Plaintiff from a de novo determination by the District Court

of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

County, 807 F.2d 889 (11 Cir. 1986); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (state judge absolutely th

immune from civil liability for acts taken pursuant to his judicial authority); Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509

U.S. 259, 273 (1993) (“[a] prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity for all actions he takes while

performing his function as an advocate for the government.”); Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312

(1981); Mills v. Criminal District Court No. 3, 837 F.2d 677, 679 (5 Cir. 1988) (“[P]rivate attorneys, th

even court-appointed attorneys, are not official state actors and . . . are not subject to suit under section

1983.”); Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-250 (1989) (the proper statute of limitations for § 1983

actions is the forum state’s general or residual statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Lufkin v.

McCallum, 956 F.2d 1104, 1105 (11 Cir. 1992) ( Alabama’s general statute of limitations for personal th

injury actions is two years. Ala. Code § 6-2-38(l)); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); Will v.

Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) (the State is entitled to immunity from suit under

the Eleventh Amendment). 

4

Case 2:13-cv-00066-TMH-TFM Document 4 Filed 02/07/13 Page 4 of 5
findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v.

th

Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard,

th

661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions

th

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

Done, this 7 day of February 2013.

th

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 2:13-cv-00066-TMH-TFM Document 4 Filed 02/07/13 Page 5 of 5