Henry v. Hancock County, MS Official
1:10-cv-00245
S.D. Miss.Mar 2, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Henry, incarcerated, filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint in 2010 against Hancock County and several state actors.
- Plaintiff seeks to remove habitual-offender status and release from further charges, plus monetary damages for alleged false imprisonment (1991–1995).
- Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915A after initial filings in 2010 and 2011.
- Court concluded the §1983 claims related to confinement are habeas, not §1983, and thus must be pursued via habeas corpus relief.
- Plaintiff’s false imprisonment claim (1991–1995) is time-barred under Mississippi’s three-year personal injury limitations borrowed by federal law.
- Court dismissed other defendants as immune or not proper parties and counted the dismissal as a Strike under §1915(e)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1983 is available for confinement/challenge to sentence | Henry argues for habeas relief to overturn habitual-offender status | Defendants contend relief must be habeas, not §1983 | Habeas relief is the proper remedy; §1983 claims about confinement are dismissed or converted to habeas |
| Whether the false imprisonment claim is timely | Henry claims ongoing injury from 1991–1995 | Time-bar applies; accrual occurred when injury became known | The claim is time-barred; accrual date 2006/2009; barred by 2010 filing |
| Whether Judge Terry is immune from §1983 claims | Judge’s actions violated constitutional rights | Judge acted within judicial capacity | Judicial immunity bars §1983 damages for the challenged acts |
| Whether prosecutors are immune from §1983 claims | Prosecutors misused habitual-offender charges | Prosecutors acted within official discretion | Absolute immunity applies; §1983 claims against them fail |
| Whether Bay St. Louis Police Department can be sued under §1983 | Department liable for actions of officers | Police departments are not proper §1983 defendants for officer actions | Bay St. Louis Police Department dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court 2005) (prisoner cannot challenge fact or duration of confinement via §1983)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (Supreme Court 1973) (exclusive remedy for confinement challenges is habeas corpus)
- Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2001) (accrual and knowledge standard for §1983 claims)
- Walker v. Epps, 550 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2008) (federal accrual rules apply; knowledge of injury triggers limitations)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court 1989) (no federal statute of limitations for §1983; borrow state law)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court 1978) (judicial immunity from damages in official judicial acts)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court 1976) (prosecutorial absolute immunity in §1983 actions)
- Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2005) (four-factor test for judicial actions within capacity)