Court Opinion

ID: 9462433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:40:48.086358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:35.158665
License: Public Domain

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in the result announced by the Court to the extent that it vacates the order of the trial court dismissing the case. I would also agree that under the general principles of the abstention doctrine the trial court should withhold action on the complaint pending a final determination by the state appellate courts of any proceedings pending at the time of the filing of the petition for relief under § 1983. With deference, however, I disagree with that part of the opinion of the Court which “reject[s] Fulford’s argument that the propriety of § 1983 actions may be determined solely on the basis of the relief sought, i. e., actions for money damages may go forward while actions for injunctive relief from incarceration may not.”
My disagreement rests upon the fact that while I agree that this is a case in which the Federal Court should abstain from passing on the issue of legality of the conviction so long as that issue is pending in the state appellate courts on direct appeal, I do not agree that such abstention is mandated on jurisdictional grounds similar to the requirements of the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).1 The importance of the difference in my views from those of the Court appears more clearly when it is noted that the principle announced by the Court in this case is adopted without further elaboration in the companion case, Meadows v. Evans, 529 F.2d 385 (5th Cir., 1976). As is evident from the Court’s opinion and my dissenting opinion in Meadows, his suit for damages *383was filed under § 1983, following a plea of guilty which he alleged had been coerced by illegal conduct of prison and prosecuting officers against him while awaiting trial. He had no appeal pending from his conviction and did not seek release from confinement. His conviction had been affirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in September 1973. Under the principle announced by the Court in this case, Meadows holds that to recover only damages for alleged misconduct which caused him to plead guilty, Meadows must await the result of state habeas corpus action.
Bearing in mind that I have agreed that the trial court should abstain in this case until an appeal on the merits from the criminal conviction has been completed by the appellate courts of the State of Louisiana, I nevertheless feel that it is necessary to disagree with the establishment by this Court of the principle on which the Court places its decision to the same effect. I feel that this is necessary because, as stated above, the Court immediately proceeds to apply this principle in the Meadows case in which no appeal is pending.
I recognize, of course, as stated by the majority opinion, that a panel of this Court is bound by an earlier decision so long as it remains unmodified either by this Court en banc or by the Supreme Court. It is my view, however, contrary to that of the majority, that the Supreme Court in Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) and Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1973) effectively overruled the Alexander case. As I read the majority opinion, it proceeds on the theory that since any action in the Federal Court seeking either release from, or diminution of the length of time of service of, a state sentence must proceed by petition for habeas corpus any action seeking damages for state conduct which the plaintiff claims infected his conviction or detention must likewise be pursued by petition for habeas corpus. The first difficulty I have with this theory is that no one has ever obtained damages by a petition for habe-as corpus. Thus, the Court would require that two lawsuits be filed in order to obtain what § 1983 clearly provides for “in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” It would require some kind of proceeding in a state court, which the Court lumps under the term “habeas corpus” followed by habeas corpus action in the federal court and then, presumably, by a suit for damages under § 1983.
The second difficulty I have with this theory is that it seems to me to be contrary to the language and reasoning of the Supreme Court in the two cases which deal with the problem, Preiser v. Rodriguez, supra, and Wolff v. McDonnell, supra. It seems to me that the following language from Wolff v. McDonnell so clearly covers the situation with which we are concerned here as to leave no doubt about the right of a plaintiff to file his § 1983 action in which he does not seek either release from confinement or a limitation upon the length of confinement but seeks only damages for alleged misconduct by state officials subject only to the general rule of abstention by the trial court in a proper case:
“At the threshold is the issue whether under Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, [93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed. 439] (1973), the validity of the procedures for depriving prisoners of good-time credits may be considered in a civil rights suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Preiser, state prisoners brought a § 1983 suit seeking an injunction to compel restoration of good-time credits. The Court held that because the state prisoners were challenging the very fact or duration of their confinement and were seeking a speedier release, their sole federal remedy was by writ of habeas corpus, 411 U.S. at 500, 93 S.Ct. at 1841, [36 L.Ed.2d at 456,] with the concomitant requirement of exhausting state remedies. But the Court was careful to point out that habeas corpus is not an appropriate or available remedy for damages claims, which, if not frivolous and of sufficient substance to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal court, could be pressed under § 1983 along *384with suits challenging the conditions of confinement rather than the fact or length of custody. 411 U.S. at 494, 498^99, 93 S.Ct. at 1838, 1840-1841 [36 L.Ed.2d at 453.]
The complaint in this case sought restoration of good-time credits, and the Court of Appeals correctly held the relief foreclosed under Preiser. But the complaint also sought damages; and Preiser expressly contemplated that claims properly brought under § 1983 could go forward while actual restoration of good-time credits is sought in state proceedings. 411 U.S. at 499, n. 14, 93 S.Ct. at 1841 [36 L.Ed.2d at 456.]12 Respondent's damages claim was therefore properly before the District Court and required determination of the validity of the procedures employed for imposing sanctions, including loss of good time, for flagrant or serious misconduct. Such a declaratory judgment as a predicate to a damages award would not be barred by Preiser; and because under that case, only an injunction restoring good time improperly taken is foreclosed, neither would it preclude a litigant with standing from obtaining by way of ancillary relief an otherwise proper injunction enjoining the prospective enforcement of invalid prison regulations.
12 One would anticipate that normal principles of res judicata would apply in such circumstances.
We therefore conclude that it was proper for the Court of Appeals and the District Court to determine the vá-lidity of the procedures for revoking good-time credits and to fashion appropriate remedies for any constitutional violations ascertained, short of ordering the actual restoration of good time already canceled.13 (Emphasis added.)
12 It is suggested that the Court of Appeals wholly excluded the matter of good time from the proceedings on remand. It is true that the court’s opinion is arguably ambiguous; but as we understand it, the District Court on remand was to determine the validity of the procedures for disciplinary hearings that may result in serious penalties, including good time, and that appropriate remedies were to be fashioned short of actual restoration of good time.”
Thus, it seems clear that even though the basis of a § 1983 suit is misconduct that is alleged to have resulted in an illegal conviction, the Court faced this precise problem in Wolff in that the basis of the claim made by the plaintiffs there was the illegal act of the state officials in depriving him of good-time credits, a clear ingredient of the “very fact or duration of confinement.” Notwithstanding this fact, the court expressly stated that “respondents damages claim was therefore properly before the District Court.” 418 U.S. at 554, 94 S.Ct. at 2973, 41 L.Ed.2d at 949. See, also, Shaw & Gonzales v. Brisco, 526 F.2d 675 (No. 75-1906, 5th Cir., 1976).
Of course, I do not attempt here to assess the likelihood of success of a suit against state prosecutors or other officials either on the facts or the applicable law. The question whether the complaint here alleges a state of facts on which relief could be granted is not now before the Court.
I would reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the suit and remand it with directions that the case be held until a final disposition of the direct criminal appeal in the state court and that the matter then proceed under § 1983 as filed.

. An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner.