* The Honor able Da nny C. Reeves, United States District Judge for t he Ea stern District of Kentucky , sitti ngby

designation. -1- NO T RE CO MME ND E D F OR FU L L - T E X T PU B L I CA T I ON

F il e Name: 09a0779n. 06 No. 08-1411 UNIT ED STATES COU RT OF APP EALS F O R TH E S IXTH C IR C U IT
AR THURSI MPS ON, P laintif f-Ap pellant,
v. P A T R IC IA L . C A R U S O , et a l., D efendan ts-Ap pellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP PEA L FR OM THE UNI TED STA TES DI STR I CT C OUR T FO R TH E EAS TERN DI STR I CT O F MI CH I GAN

Bef ore: M AR T IN and SU T T ON , Circ uitJ udges ; REE VE S, Dis tr ic t Judge. * DA NN Y C
. RE E VE S, Dis tr ic t Judge. Appell antArthur Si mpson appeal s the dis tr ic t court ’ s det ermi nat ion that Simps on’ s pri marycl ai ms were bei ng as s ert ed under42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than 28 U.S. C. § 2254. He f urt her c hal le nges t he di s tr ic t c ourt ’ s dis mis s al of his ent ir e compl ai nt pur s uantto 42 U. S.C. § 1997e(c ). Beca us e we concl ude thatSimps on’ s compl ai nt cont ai ns both acl ai m f

or monet arydamage s as well as a cl ai m f or habea s rel ie f

, and becaus e one of his cl ai ms i s s uf

f ic ie nt t o s urvi ve di s mis s al u p o n in itial revi ew, we REVERSE the dis tr ic t court ’ s dis mis s al of tha t cl ai m and RE MAND t h i s ma t t e rf o rf u r t h e rp r o c e e d i n g s . Ho we v e r , weNo. 08-1411

Sim ps on v . Ca ru so

-2- A F F I R M dis mis s al of

the rema ini ng cl ai m a s f ai li ng to s ta te a cl ai m upon whic h rel ie f may be grant ed. I. Si mps on e s c a pe d f

ro m c us t od y whi l e be i ng t ra ns po rt e d b e t wee n f a c i l i t i e s . At t he t i me of his es cape , Simps on was s ervi ng a twenty to f ort y y ear s ent ence f

or armed robbe ry . During his e scape, S imp son shot and killed a dep uty. Simp son elu ded captu re an d ev entua llymad e his way to L ondon, E ngla nd. Whil e i n E ngla nd, Simps on was a rre s te d and convi ct ed of arme d robbery and pos s es s ing af ir earm w ith int entto c ommitan i ndic table of f ens e. Simps on’ s true i de nt i t y was di s c ov e re d thr ou gh a f i ng e rp ri nte xc ha ng e pr og ra m. Wil li am Delhe y , Prose cut ing Att orneyf or Was hte naw County , M ic higa n, s ought S imp son’s extradition thr ou gh Joseph C larke o f the Br iti sh C on sulate. Simp son alleges that a k ey tel ephone c onvers at ion r egar ding hi s extradi ti on occurred be tween Del heyand Cl arke on J une 16, 1978. He poi nts to a port ion of the conver s at ion a s proof tha t a s s uranc es were gi ven to the B ritis h g ov ernm en t that he w ou ld on ly s erve tw enty-three years for a lif e sentence if extradi te d. J os eph Cl arke : Whathappens in prac ti ce in M ic higa n in cas es where a pr is oner is convi ct ed of

f ir s t de gree murder, does he s tay i ns ide f or l if e or doe s he have li cens e or r el eas e or pa rol e eve r t ake pl ace ? Wil li am Delhe y : No. T here is no parol e or rel eas e. T he onl y way thathe ca n be rel eas ed f rom conf ine ment is by commuta ti on of s ent ence by the el ect ed governor of the Stat e of

M ic higa n.No. 08-1411

Sim ps on v . Ca ru so

-3- J os eph Cl arke : I f

rel eas e is pos s ibl e, coul d any indi cat ion be given as to how long Simps on mightbe expe ct ed t o s erve ? Wil li am Delhe y : I f

ind thi s s omewhat di f

f ic ultto a ns wer. I do know thatthe re are many comm u tation[ s ] of s ent ence s . I di d conf

er with M r. Brown at the D epar tmen t of Cor rections an d h e adv ised me th at the aver age term in co n fin em en t o f first d eg re e m u rd er p ri so n er is 2 3 yea rs. O n July 20, 19 78 , af

ter com pleting his p rison sentence in E ng land, S imp son w as extradited to M ic higa n f

or pros ecut ion on the f

ir s t de gree murder c harge
. He w as later f ound guil tyand
rec ei ved a l if

e s ent ence . S imp son’s comp laint con tains tw o clai ms against curr ent and f orm er direc tors, wa rden s, and empl oy ees of

the M ich ig an D epartme nt of Correc ti ons s eeki ng monet aryand i njunc ti ve relief . In supp ort o f his fi rst clai m, S imp son alleged th at the defend ants are vio lating a state courtorderand Arti cl e X II of the T rea tyon E xtr adi ti on Bet ween the Unite d Stat es and the Governmentof

the Unite d Kingdom of GreatBrit ai n and Northe rn Ir el and (“ E xtr adi ti on T rea ty ”), J an. 21, 1977, 28 U.S.T. 227, by f orci ng him t o s erve an armed robbe rys ent ence and
an es cape s ent ence f

or which he was notextradi te d. Simps on al s o cl ai ms thatthe s ta te is us ing this in fo r m a tio n ag ainst him in p arole eligibilityand class if ication rep orts. In supp ort o f his second claim, Sim pson asserted that the def end ants violated A rticle IV of the E xtrad iti on T reaty by ref us ing t o f ulf il l the as s uranc e made duri ng extradi ti on tha t he would s erve onlytwenty -t hree y ear s if convi ct ed of

f ir s t- degre e murde r. T he compl ai nt s ta te s , “ [ t] his is a ci vil act ion .
. . s eeki ng d amage s , with mot ions f or a judgme nt of

cont emptand writof

habea s corpus . ” The dis tr ic t c ourtf ound sua spo nte th at “aNo. 08-1411

Sim ps on v . Ca ru so

-4- fai r read ing o f the co mp laint show s that plaintif f i s att emp ting to assert a feder al civil rights cla im ag ain st d efe n d an ts.” T h e d istr ict co u rt fur th er d ete rm in ed th at, [ w]hi le appropr ia te lycons trued as a ci vil ri g h ts cas e, the grava man [ s ic ] of pla int if f ’ s compl ai nt is tha t he chal le nges the val idi ty of his c o nti nued impr is onment . T o tha t e xte nt, the compl ai nt f ai ls to s ta te a cl ai m upon w hic h rel ie f may be gra nte d under § 1983.
. . . As appl ie d to pla int if f , if pla int if

f were to pr evail on his treaty violation and den ial of comm utation claim s, the va lidity o f hi s co n tin u ed co n fin em en t w o u ld b e ca lle d in to q u est io n . . . . S h o u ld p lai n tiff w ish to challeng e the co nstituti on ality of h is co nv iction, the pro per p roce du re is to f il e a habeas cas e under28 U.S.C. § 2254. Simps on f

il ed a t ime lyappea l, argui ng tha t he did notf il e hi s compl ai nt unde r § 1983. H is appeal w as referred to a p anel o f this Co urt p ursua nt to R ule 34 (j)(1) , Rule s o f the S ixth Circu it. T he panel held that Simp son had raised a substantial is sue con cern ing w hethe r his case
s hould ha ve bee n cons trued as a pet it ion f or a writ of habea s corpus and grant ed his moti on f or leave to p roce ed o n ap peal in form a p au peris
. II. Thi s Cou rtha s j ur i s di c t i on t o h e a r thi s a pp e a l pu rs ua ntt o 28 U. S. C. § 12 91 a nd28 U. S. C. § 1 33 1. W e rev iew a district court’s legal con clusions de novo and i ts f indi ngs of

f actunder the cle ar ly er ro n eo u s sta n d ar d
. Great Lakes E xpl or ati on Group, LLC v. Unident if ie d Wrec ked , 522 F.3d 682, 687 (6t h Cir. 2008) (c it ing D.A.B.E., Inc. v. Cit y of Tol edo , 393 F.3d 692, 695 (6t h Cir. 20 05 )). T his Co urt rev iew s de novo the district cour t’ s in ter pretation that the co mp laint is a cla im u n d er 4 2 U .S .C
. § 1 9 8 3
. See i d. We a l s o r e v i e w de novo the dis tr ic t c ourt ’ s dis mis s al of S im p so n ’s co m p lai n t. See Sc ott v. A mbani , 5 7 7 F .3 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 6 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ).No. 08-1411

Sim ps on v . Ca ru so

-5- Simps on’ s compl ai nt c hal le nges the durat ion of his inc arcera ti on and s eeks monet ary damage s bas ed on as s uranc es giv en t o Brit is h governme nt of f ic ia ls duri ng the extradi ti on proce s s . A chal le nge to the durat ion of inc arc era ti on f al ls withi n the s cope of

a habe as corpus p eti tio n , w h ile a r eq u est for m o n ey d am ag es i s ev alu ate d u n d er 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3
. M uhamm ad v. Close , 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per c uri am). T he pre li mina rys ta te mentof the compl ai nt
s peci f ic al lys ta te s “ [ t] his is a ci vil act ion .
. . s eeki ng damage s , with moti ons f or a j udgmentof cont emptand writof

habea s corpus . ” The jur is dic ti onal para g ra p h as s ert s “ [ t] his courthas jurisdiction over plaintif f’ s claims of the treaty violation s and w rit un der the S up rem acy Clause U .S .C .A . A rt . V I C l. 2 , 2 8 U .S .C
. § [§] 1 3 3 1 (a ) an d 1 6 5 1
. T h e tr ea ty in q u est io n , T IA S 8 4 6 8 [,] is a ‘ Self E xecut ing’ tr eaty . ” Id
. T h e co m p lai n t do es no t cite § 19 8 3
. Id
. Simps on al s o f il ed
a s epar at e moti on f

or a writ of habea s corpus which he ref ere nced in his com p lai n t. Id
. T he dis t r i c tc o u r tf

o u n d t h a t“ t h e g r a v a ma n ( s i c ) o f p l a i n t i f f ’ s c o mp l a i n ti s t h a th e c h a l l e n g e d the val idi tyof

his cont inue d impr is onment . ” How ever , the dis tr ic t c ourtrul ed that“ a f ai r re adi ng of th e c o m p laint show s that plaintif f i s att emp ting to assert a federal civil rights claim again st def endant s . ” The dis tr ic t cou rt fur th er s ta te d tha t, “ Should pl ai nti f f wis h to c hal le nge t he
c on s t i tut i on a l i t y of

hi s c on vi c t i on , t he pr op e r pr oc e du re i s t o f i l e a habe a s c a s e un de r 2 8 U. S. C. § 2 2 5 4 .” T he di s tr ic t c ourtwas c orre ctwhen itconc lu d ed tha t the mos t s igni f ic antpartof Simps on’ s compl ai nt was his chal le nge t o the val idi ty of his cont inue d impr is onmentbas ed on a trea ty . A dis tr ic t c ourt s hal l ent ert ai n an appl ic at ion f or a wri t of

habea s corpus on behal f ofNo. 08-1411

Sim ps on v . Ca ru so

-6- a per son in c ustody pu rsuan t to the ju d g m e n t o f a stat e cou rt on ly on the g rou nd that he is in
cus todyin vi ola ti on of

the Const ituti on or l aws or tr eat ies o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2254 (2009) ( emphas is added)
. G iv en th at Simps on’ s compl ai nt ( i) f ai le d to c it e § 1983 and ins te ad ci te d the All Wri ts Act as a juri s dic ti onal bas is , (i i) ref err ed to his moti on f

or a wri t of hab eas corp us, and ( iii ) req uested im med iate release as reli ef, th e district court erre d in
con struing S imp so n ’s c o m p la int as a § 19 83 action ra ther than a hab eas petition. T his
co n c lu sion is al so supp orted by the fact that the p rop er pr oced ure for ch allenging his
con fi nem ent as violating an ex tradition treaty is a habeas petition; an d that pro se compl ai nts are to b e c o n str u ed lib er all y, s ee Haine s v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) ( per c uri am). T he d istrict cour t then dismissed S imp son’s en tire co mp laint, f indin g that it f

ailed to state a cl ai m upon which rel ie f may be grant ed under § 1983. “ [ A] c ompla ints hould notbe di s mis s ed f or f ai lur e t o s ta te a cl ai m unle s s itappea rs bey ond doubt that the pla int if f can prove no s etof f act s in s upportof

his cl ai m which w ould e nti tl e hi m to r el ie f
. ” Kottmyer

v. M aas , 436 F.3d 684, 688 (6t h Cir. 2006) ( quoti ng Conle y v. Gibs on , 355 U .S. 41 , 45-4 6 (1 95 7))
. T h e cou rt “ mu st
acc eptal l f

act s in the compl ai nt a s true and c ons true the compl ai nt li bera ll y in f avor of the pla int if f
. ” A d ika v. Sm ith , 466 F.3d 503, 505 (6t h Cir. 2006). A dis tr ic t c ourt ’ s deci s ion ma y be af f irmed on anygrounds s upport ed bythe rec ord, even though the y may be di f f ere nt f rom t he g ro u n d s re lie d o n b y th e dis tr ict co u rt . Cit y of M anagement Corp. v. U.S. Chemical Co., Inc. , 43 F.3d 244, 251 (6t h Cir. 1994).No. 08-1411

Sim ps on v . Ca ru so

-7- Simps on’ s compl ai nt c onta ins two cl ai ms. His f ir s t cl ai m al le ges tha t the def endant s are viol at ing as ta te court order and A rt ic le XII of the E xtr adi ti on T rea tyby f orci ng him t o s erve an
arme d robbery s ent ence and an e s cape s ent ence f or wh ich h e w as n o t e xtr adi te d and thatthe defend ants are usi ng this informa tion against him in par ole eligibilityand class if ication rep orts. Arti cl e XII of

the E xtr adi ti on T rea ty p re v en ts an extradi te d party f rom s ervi ng ti me f

or any
o ffen se o th er th an th e e x tr ad ite d o ffen se u n les s an ex ce p tio n is m et. See E xtr adi ti on T rea ty , J an. 21 , 197 7, 28 U .S.T . 227 . Ac c e p ti n g th e a lleg ations as true, Sim pson ’s claim is not ob viou sly f ri volous , and we the ref

ore r emand i t to the dis tr ic t court f or consi dera ti on in the f

ir s t i ns ta nce. Simps on as s ert s in hi s s econd c la im thatthe def endant s violated Arti cl e IV of the E xtr adi ti on T rea tyby ref us ing t o f ulf il l a s s uranc es tha t he would s erve onlytwenty -t hree y ear s i f c on vi c t e d o f

f i rs t -d e gr e e mur de r. Acc or di ng t o th e c omp l a i nt , t he s e a s s ur a nc e s s t e m f ro m a te le phone conve rs at ion thatal le gedl y occurred on J une 16, 1978, between the s ta te pros ecut or W ill iam D elhey and Joseph Clark e of the Britis h Con sulate. D elhey told Clarke that “ [t ]here is no parol e or r el eas e [ and] [ t] he only way tha t [ Simps on] can be rel eas ed f rom conf ine mentis by commuta ti o n of

s ent ence by the el ect ed governor of the Stat e of

M ic higa n. ” Delhe y f

urt her ad v ise d th at “th e a v er ag e te rm in co n fin em en t o f first d eg re e m u rd er p ri so n er is 2 3 yea rs.” S im p so n m isc o n str u es t h is c o n v er sat io n as a n assu ra n ce to B ri tish au th o ri tie s t h a t h is life
s ent ence would be l imi te d to twenty -t hree y ear s . In f act , Delheys peci f

ic al lys ta te s tha t onl y the govern o r o f Mi c h i g a n ma y r e d u c e Si mp s o n ’ s s e n t e n c e . Th e r e f o r e , a c c e p t i n g a l l f

a c t s i n the
com plaint as true, S imp son can pro ve no set o f facts in supp ort of th is cl aim w hich w ou ld entitleNo. 08-1411

Sim ps on v . Ca ru so

-8- him to relief

. A ccor ding ly, w e aff

irm the district cou rt’ s dismiss al of Simp son’s s econ d claim on othe r grounds s upport ed bythe rec ord. III . We AFFI RM dis mis s al of Simps on’ s cl ai m tha t the def endant s viol at ed A rt ic le IV of the E xtr adi ti on T rea ty by ref us ing to f ulf il l as s uranc es tha t he w ould se rve onlytwenty -t hree y ear s if convi ct ed of f

ir s t- degre e murder. How ever , becaus e w e concl ude that Simps on’ s rema ini ng claim w as impro perly char acterized b y the d istrict cour t, and be cause that claim m ay have m erit,
we REVERSE dis mis s al of th atcl ai m and RE MAND thi s mat te r f or f urt her pr ocee dings
cons is te nt with thi s opini on.