Source: http://mo.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190619_0001151.EMO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-03-29 21:35:00
Document Index: 197418348

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 2254', '§ 1983', '§ 2254', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 2254']

FindACase™ | Winters v. Lytle
Winters v. Lytle
CEDRIC L. WINTERS, Plaintiff,
JEREME GEORGE LYTLE, et al., Defendants.
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of pro se plaintiff Cedric L. Winters for leave to commence this action without prepayment of the required filing fee. Having reviewed the motion and the financial information submitted in support, the Court will grant the motion, and assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, after reviewing the complaint, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.
In support of the instant motion, plaintiff submitted an inmate account statement showing only a one-month time period. ECF No. 3. However, the brief accounting does support plaintiff's statement in his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, that he receives $7.50 per month for his prison job. ECF No. 2. The Court finds that plaintiff has insufficient funds in his prison account to pay the entire filing fee and will therefore assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.50, which is twenty percent of plaintiff's average monthly deposit.
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Missouri and prosecuting attorney Jereme George Lytle, in both his individual and official capacities. On April 3, 2018, plaintiff pled guilty to third degree assault in the 34th Judicial Circuit Court in Pemiscot County, Missouri. Plaintiff asserts his claims against the defendants in one sentence on his complaint: “Mr. Jereme George Lytle failed Mr. Winters because he filed Mr. Winters with 3rd degree assault then State of Missouri harmed Mr. Winters by accepting Mr. Winters guilty plea while Mr. Winters were mentally unstable.” ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff claims that he has suffered financial and mental health injuries, including admittance to a “ward for psychotic mental illness” following his sentencing. Id. at 4. For relief, plaintiff seeks money damages and dismissal of the third degree assault charge.
Both the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provide access to a federal forum for claims of unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials. But these statutes differ in both scope and operation.
Generally, a prisoner's challenge to the validity of his confinement or to matters affecting its duration falls within the province of habeas corpus and, therefore, must be brought pursuant to § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). On the other hand, challenges involving the circumstances of confinement, or how one ended up in confinement, may be presented in a § 1983 action. Often, the Court looks to the relief requested by plaintiff to see what type of action he is seeking. If plaintiff is seeking money damages for civil rights violations relating to his conditions of confinement, the case is most likely a § 1983 action. However, if plaintiff is seeking to expunge or vacate his conviction, the action is most likely one brought pursuant to habeas corpus, or § 2254.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In this case, plaintiff is seeking both money damages and to vacate and expunge his conviction. This appears to be a &ldquo;hybrid&rdquo; action of some sort, where plaintiff is seeking both relief under 42 U.S.C. &sect; 1983, as well as under 28 U.S.C. &sect; 2254.[1] The Court will not allow plaintiff to proceed under both statutes simultaneously in one action. If he wishes to bring both ...