Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00519/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00519-2/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

WILLIE KEVIN WILLIAMS )

AIS #173816, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-519-ID

) [WO]

)

ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Willie Kevin Williams [“Williams”], a state inmate,

challenges the constitutionality of his confinement pursuant to a sentence imposed upon him

for a 2003 criminal offense. Specifically, Williams argues that reliance by correctional

officials on a fifteen-year sentence imposed upon him by the Circuit Court of Baldwin

County, Alabama on October 19, 2006 as the basis for his incarceration is improper because

the trial court originally imposed only a sentence of ten years for the offense. In support of

this argument, Williams complains that on October 19, 2006 “the Circuit Court of Baldwin

County [erroneously] increased his sentence [on case number CC-03.407.70] to 15 years

from a Revocation that was dismissed in open Court....” Plaintiff’s Complaint - Court Doc.

No. 1 at 1. 

Case 2:09-cv-00519-ID-WC Document 5 Filed 06/16/09 Page 1 of 5
 The court entered an order granting Williams leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this cause of action. 1

Order of June 16, 2009 - Court Doc. No. 4. Consequently, Williams 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).

2

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). 

1

II. DISCUSSION

Williams asserts “that the court[] sentenced [him] to one sentence [of 10 years] but

... [after proceedings on October 19, 2006] sent an Order [to correctional officials] for [him]

to serve another sentence [under CC-03.407.70] which was (15) years.” Plaintiff’s

Complaint - Court Doc. No. 1 at 2. Williams complains that correctional officials are relying

on the 15-year sentence submitted by the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama to

calculate his release date which has resulted in a release date greater than the original term

of his sentence. Thus, the claims presented to this court go to the fundamental legality of the

length of Williams’ 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

Case 2:09-cv-00519-ID-WC Document 5 Filed 06/16/09 Page 2 of 5
3

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 or sentence.”

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 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 corpus. 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. 

Case 2:09-cv-00519-ID-WC Document 5 Filed 06/16/09 Page 3 of 5
 The plaintiff is advised that if he seeks to challenge the terms of the sentence(s) imposed upon him by 2

the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama, he may do so by filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas

corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama which is located in Mobile,

Alabama. 

4

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

of a sentence imposed upon him by the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama. A

judgment in favor of Williams on this complaint would necessarily imply the invalidity of the

length of his incarceration based on this sentence. The record of this court does not

demonstrate that the sentence and resulting confinement about which the plaintiff complains

have 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). 

2

III. CONCLUSION

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

dismissed without prejudice prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of

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

ORDERED that on or before June 29, 2009, 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

Case 2:09-cv-00519-ID-WC Document 5 Filed 06/16/09 Page 4 of 5
5

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 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 16th day of June, 2009.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00519-ID-WC Document 5 Filed 06/16/09 Page 5 of 5