Case Name: Jeffrey HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Adame HASSE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-21
Citations: 555 F. App'x 600
Docket Number: No. 13-3017
Parties: Jeffrey HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Adame HASSE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge and DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 555
Pages: 600–600

Head Matter:
Jeffrey HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Adame HASSE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-3017.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted and Decided Feb. 21, 2014.
Rehearing Denied April 11, 2014.
Jeffrey Harris, Madison, WI, pro se.
Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge and DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.
The defendant was not served with process in the district court and is not participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the appellant’s brief and the record. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

Opinion:
ORDER
In this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Jeffrey Harris alleges that his probation officer violated his constitutional rights by forcing him, under threat of imprisonment, to accept an extension of his probation without a hearing. Harris seeks an order staying "the execution of arrest warrant, and mandatory appearances." The district court dismissed the suit at screening without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
We agree with the district court that Harris chose the wrong vehicle to challenge the extension of his probation. Probation is a form of custody, Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 430, 104 S.Ct. 1136, 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984); Drollinger v. Milligan, 552 F.2d 1220, 1224 (7th Cir.1977), and § 1983 cannot be used to attack the fact or length of custody, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); Williams v. Wisconsin, 336 F.3d 576, 579-80 (7th Cir.2003). Instead, Harris may pursue his grievance only in a collateral action after exhausting his available state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Williams, 336 F.3d at 579-80; Drollinger, 552 F.2d at 1224-25.
AFFIRMED.