Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-CV-P159-TBR
03-13-2019
SHEILA D. BRANTNER PLAINTIFF v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DEFENDANT
cc: Plaintiff, pro se
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court for sua sponte screening of the pro se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss this action.
Sheila D. Brantner, a convicted inmate at the McCracken County Jail, initiated this action by filing a handwritten document with the following opening statement: "This is a complaint to be filed in Federal Court against Ky. Dept. of Corrections." In this initiating document, Plaintiff alleged as follows:
I have been on parole since May 1st 2012 that ended on June 16th 2017. Then parole started again 08/10/2017 and ended again on 08/02/18. For a total of 2,229 days. Department of Corrections has allegedly took this amount of time from me for absconding which is a technical violation I did not obtain any new charges ever. That equals to 6 years 1 mo. and 9 days. If I could get this time that I am rightfully entitled to I could be served out real soon. I'm asking for this time to be granted to me.(DN 1).
Because Plaintiff did not file her "complaint" on a form and neither paid the filing fee nor filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis, the Clerk of Court issued a deficiency notice directing her to do so (DN 3). Plaintiff complied and returned her complaint on a form for filing a civil-rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (DN 1-1). Therein, Plaintiff alleges, "6/6/17 - 1872 days were added back onto my sentence. I was a Parolee from 5/1/12 - 6/16/17 and received Parole Compliance Credits . . . . 08/02/2016 357 more days were added back onto sentence." As relief, she seeks only injunctive relief in the form of "2229 off current time."
It is unclear whether the Clerk sent Plaintiff only a § 1983 form or also a habeas form. Because it appears that Plaintiff likely intended to file a habeas petition, instead of a § 1983 action, the Court will not assess the $350.00 filing fee against her. --------
Here, Plaintiff seeks a speedier release from imprisonment. However, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not the proper vehicle for challenging the duration of imprisonment. "[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Because Plaintiff is seeking an immediate or speedier release from detention, a § 1983 action is not the appropriate avenue for such relief. This § 1983 action, therefore, will be dismissed by separate Order.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a form for filing a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should she wish to file such an action. Date: March 13, 2019
/s/
Thomas B. Russell, Senior Judge
United States District Court cc: Plaintiff, pro se
4413.005