Source: https://casetext.com/case/simpson-v-new-jersey
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:01:57+00:00

Document:
MICHAEL JAMES SIMPSON, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant.
Thus, to state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege, first, the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and, second, that the alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). 6. To the extent Plaintiff is challenging his underlying conviction and seeking release, such a claim is not cognizable in a civil rights case. In Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), the Supreme Court held that a person may not obtain equitable relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 releasing him from confinement. See also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554 (1974). The Court ruled that when person in custody is "challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus." Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500. 7. Since a habeas corpus petition would be the proper mechanism to raise a challenge related to release from custody, Plaintiff's claim is not viable in this action. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed. An appropriate order follows.

References: v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v.