Court Opinion

ID: 9469654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:46:06.526666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:29.956319
License: Public Domain

JAMES C. HILL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
In 1977, Quarles invoked the jurisdiction of the federal court by filing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In that petition, he complained that, in the state system, he had been denied the opportunity of appealing his conviction due to inadequate assistance of counsel. As I view it, Quarles was seeking, in the federal court, an order and judgment granting him the right to an out-of-time appeal. The federal courts cannot direct the state judiciary to grant an appeal, but in a judgment on a petition for the Great Writ may accomplish the granting of the appeal by denying to the state the right to the further execution of the sentence if the appeal privilege not be given.
Quarles made a great deal of headway in the federal judiciary in his pursuit of an *347appeal in the state system. The district judge agreed with him and directed that the state grant Quarles an appeal and that counsel be appointed to represent him on the appeal upon pain of the entering of “an appropriate order” by the district judge if these things not be accomplished within 90 days. Quarles was thus proceeding very well in his search for the right to an appeal in the state system, but he had not obtained a final judgment. The state appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, seeking the reversal of the district court’s judgment.
At that point, Quarles abandoned his effort to obtain an out-of-time appeal. Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U.S. 534, 539 n.7, 95 S.Ct. 1173, 1176 n.7, 43 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975); Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138, 17 S.Ct. 525, 41 L.Ed. 949 (1897); Joensen v. Wainwright, 615 F.2d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 1980). No longer willing to abide the jurisdiction of the court, which he had invoked, he escaped from custody and, for more than two years, his whereabouts were unknown to the state authorities or to the judiciary. Because Quarles had abandoned his case, all that he had secured was ordered vacated and his claim was dismissed. Under rationale of Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), the dismissal of his original habeas petition was proper. Quarles should not be allowed, once again, to invoke federal jurisdiction for the purpose of presenting these claims. It is true that Quarles comes to court now asserting his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nevertheless, his assertions are that his conviction in the state court violated the Constitution and that the sentence pronounced upon him by the state court ought to be declared invalid. Those are the issues that he sought to present to the appellate courts of the state by the out-of-time appeal which he sought to obtain in the original habeas corpus petition. Now, he seeks to present them directly to the federal court, without an appeal to the state appellate court, cloaked in a section 1983 case.
Section 1983, however, does not provide an alternative method of presenting an attack upon the constitutionality of a conviction. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); Stevens v. Heard, 674 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1982); Keenan v. Bennett, 613 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1980); Watson v. Briscoe, 554 F.2d 650 (5th Cir. 1977); Meadows v. Evans, 529 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1976), aff’d en banc, 550 F.2d 345 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 969, 98 S.Ct. 517, 54 L.Ed.2d 457 (1977); Fulford v. Klein, 529 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1976) , aff’d en banc, 550 F.2d 342 (5th Cir. 1977) . Quarles abandoned what he originally sought, and what he now asserts is nothing more than a disguised attempted reinstatement of his habeas petition.
I should affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing this case, without remand, even though my reasons for dismissal are somewhat different from those stated by the district court.