Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00099/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00099-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

The evidentiary materials submitted in support of the complaint establish that the Circuit Court of

Baldwin County, Alabama imposed convictions upon Jerkins in 1998 for third degree burglary and breaking

and entering a vehicle. Plaintiff’s Complaint - Court Doc. No. 1 at 8. In 2002, this same state court again

convicted Jerkins of third degree burglary. Id. In 2005, the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Alabama

imposed a conviction upon Jerkins for second degree escape and sentenced him to 6 months imprisonment.

Id. at 9. The evidentiary materials filed herein do not contain a copy of the sentencing order or any other

document which sets forth entry of this sentence as either concurrent or consecutive to the prior Baldwin

County sentences. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY JERKINS, #162600, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-0099-TMH

) [WO]

)

RICHARD ALLEN and KATHY HOLT, )

)

 Defendants. )

 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Gregory Jerkins [“Jerkins”], a state inmate, challenges

the constitutionality of his continued incarceration in the Alabama prison system based on

various criminal offenses.1

 Specifically, Jerkins argues state correctional officials refuse to

release him on parole as granted by the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles regarding his

Baldwin County convictions. Jerkins maintains his confinement is improperly based on the

6-month sentence imposed for his escape conviction when that sentence expired in December

of 2005. Jerkins seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages and release on parole. 

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

Case 2:09-cv-00099-TMH-CSC Document 4 Filed 02/12/09 Page 1 of 5
 2

The court granted Jerkins leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Court Doc. No. 3. A prisoner who

is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis will have his complaint screened under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) which requires this 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

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

 

DISCUSSION

Jerkins complains the defendants are violating his constitutional rights by detaining

him “illegally past his sentence expiration date of the 6 Months [on the escape conviction]

which was served in full....” Plaintiff’s Complaint - Court Doc. No. 1 at 2. Since the

sentence imposed for the escape conviction provides the basis for Jerkins’ current

incarceration, the claim presented to this court goes to the fundamental legality of his

incarceration. Consequently, the challenge to confinement contained in the complaint

provides 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 or sentence.”

Case 2:09-cv-00099-TMH-CSC Document 4 Filed 02/12/09 Page 2 of 5
 3

Jerkins argues Heck is not applicable to his case because “he has a valid claim” for relief. Plaintiff’s

Complaint - Court Doc. No. 1 at 3. This assertion is without merit as it is the nature of a claim for relief, not

the validity of it, which requires disposition under Heck. 

3

512 U.S. at 487.3

 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-00099-TMH-CSC Document 4 Filed 02/12/09 Page 3 of 5
 4

The plaintiff is advised that if he seeks to proceed on his challenge to the constitutionality of his current

incarceration he may do so by filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief in the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. However, prior to filing a federal habeas action, the

plaintiff should exhaust any remedy available to him before the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). 

4

Jerkins challenges the constitutionality of his confinement as it relates to a 2005

sentence imposed upon him for second degree escape by the Circuit Court of Escambia

County, Alabama. A judgment in favor of Jerkins on this claim would necessarily imply the

invalidity of his incarceration based on this sentence. It is clear from the records of this court

that the sentence and resulting confinement about which the plaintiff complains has 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).4

 

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 February 25, 2009 the parties may file objections to the

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-00099-TMH-CSC Document 4 Filed 02/12/09 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 12th day of February, 2009.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00099-TMH-CSC Document 4 Filed 02/12/09 Page 5 of 5