Opinion ID: 617016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unlawful Confinement Claims

Text: The district court did not err in dismissing Dollar’s claims of unlawful arrest and interrogation. A habeas petition is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who makes such a challenge and seeks immediate or speedier release. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 1841 (1973). Moreover, a state 3 We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915A(b)(1), using the same standards that govern Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissals. Leal v. Ga. Dep’t of Corrs., 254 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001). Under those standards, we accept the allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 872 (11th Cir. 2008). The district court may dismiss the complaint if the facts as pled do not state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 6 prisoner’s § 1983 claim is barred “no matter the relief sought” and “no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit” if success on that claim would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his conviction or length of confinement. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 1248 (2005); Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. If it would, the district court must dismiss the claim unless the plaintiff can show that the conviction or sentence has been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. To the extent Dollar’s complaint seeks release based on his unlawful arrest or detention, those claims must be brought in a timely federal habeas petition. Additionally, a claim for a Miranda violation is not cognizable under § 1983. Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 1999). Given that Dollar’s state criminal proceedings were still pending, the district court properly refused to construe Dollar’s complaint as a habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) (providing that a writ of habeas corpus may not be granted unless the petition has exhausted the remedies available in the state courts). And, because Dollar’s conviction has not “already been invalidated,” Dollar’s claims for money damages are barred by Heck. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. 7