Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180628_0000942.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 07:13:36+00:00

Document:
CITY OF TOPEKA, et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff Anthony Eugene Clark, an inmate at the Shawnee County Adult Detention Center in Topeka, Kansas, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Clark proceeds pro se and has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed.
Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) challenges the legality of his incarceration. Plaintiff was sentenced on September 16, 2016, to serve 12 months for violating a protective order in Shawnee County District Court No. 16-CR-1416. The sentence was to run consecutive to a 12-month sentence he received in No. 16-CR-0508. He was released on probation on April 15, 2017. Plaintiff's probation was revoked on November 2, 2017. Mr. Clark claims he only had four (4) months remaining in his sentence at that point, yet he remained incarcerated on May 14, 2018, when he filed this action.
Plaintiff names as defendants the City of Topeka and the Shawnee County Adult Detention Center. Plaintiff seeks immediate release, as well as compensatory and punitive damages for wrongful incarceration.
Moreover, because, as discussed below, the Court construes Plaintiff's complaint as a §2241 habeas corpus petition, the Court has a duty to summarily dismiss the petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4, 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254. Rule 4 may be applied in the Court's discretion to actions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; see also Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203, 1210 n. 2 (10th Cir .2005) (district court acted within its discretion in applying the Section 2254 Rules to prisoner's § 2241 petition) (citing Rule 1(b)).
After reviewing Plaintiff's complaint with the standards set out above in mind, the Court finds that the complaint should be construed as a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and is subject to dismissal because Mr. Clark has not exhausted his state court remedies.
Plaintiff primarily seeks release from imprisonment. “[A] § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973) (emphasis added). When the legality of a confinement is challenged so that the remedy would be release or a speedier release, the case must be filed as a habeas corpus proceeding rather than under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the plaintiff must comply with the exhaustion of state court remedies requirement. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 482 (1994); see also Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2000) (exhaustion of state court remedies is required by prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief). Therefore, Plaintiff's claim is not cognizable in a § 1983 action.
Because Mr. Clark challenges the execution of his sentence, rather than the validity of his conviction, this action should have been filed as a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011) (stating that petition under § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity). Given Mr. Clark's pro se status, the Court liberally construes his claim as a habeas petition filed pursuant to § 2241.

References: § 1983
 §2241
 § 2254
 § 2254
 § 2241
 v. 
 § 2241
 § 2241
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 2241
 v. 
 § 2241
 § 2241