Gipson v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Office
613 F.3d 1054
11th Cir.
2010
Check Treatment
Docket

*1 Before BARKETT and *2 1055 detained is unconstitutional because them ROTH,* Judges. Circuit hearing to a provide it that addresses BARKETT, Judge: Circuit indigency. McGuirk, Timo- Gipson, William Sidney that, The district held because 28 (“Plain- Guthery, Sasser thy and James remedy is U.S.C. the exclusive tiffs”) of their the dismissal plaintiffs for the claims where success nec- Hale, the against Mike 1983 suit essarily means “either immediate release County, and the State of Jefferson Sheriff shortening that the Plaintiffs are civil detainees from confinement or of Alabama. convicted of a sex offense duration,” who have been see Preiser impris- completed their terms and have 475, 489, 93 S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d kept are in state but nonetheless onment precluded Plaintiffs were them keeps detained custody. bringing their and Community Notifi- to Alabama’s pursuant the case. Because the district (the “Act”), requires in- Act cation erroneously applied Plain- of a sex offense dividuals convicted tiffs’ we reverse and remand. before the provide a residential address or be expiration of their sentence else DISCUSSION the at time []

“remanded 15-20-22(a)(l)(a). release.” Ala.Code Although the district court correct the with provide failed to State recognized that is the exclusive thus, and, have been a residential address remedy for claims where success the completion of kept custody past would demonstrate their sentences. invalidity shortening of a conviction allege they are unable imposed by a of a sentence Act because are indi- comply with the Preiser, have ad- gent therefore no residential and is the claim that Plaintiffs 1983, they Proceeding under dress. making here. essence of Plaintiffs’ Sixth, Fourth, Fifth, claim violations of process. a ease is claim for Amendments, the Eighth, and Fourteenth to appreciate The district court failed Clause, im- wrongful Facto Post successful, claim, if would affect allege prisonment. Specifically, Plaintiffs of their conviction nor the violating State is their constitu- resulting and would not imposed, sentence alia, “automatically by, inter rights tional necessarily result in immediate release.1 indigent imposing incarceration because Indeed, specifically Court has hearing.” a doing so without status circumstances, that, such held under these (1) procedure seek: a As relief precluded by 2254 and can a claim not if indigent determine whether Wil be so, Act comply can with the how kinson v. detained; being indefinitely without (2) 1242, 161L.Ed.2d keeps Act which a declaration * Roth, not file a nal sentences therefore could Jane R. United States Honorable Circuit, sitting designa- Judge petition In to file a Third tion. person a custody pursuant "in to the of a Indeed, agree parties all now 2254(b)(1). ....” any bearing State court does not have completed crimi- because Plaintiffs have situation,

In In similar the Sixth Circuit an action under declarato- likewise 1983 was available for relief, ry injunctive' and prospective suit challenging indigency the lack of *3 claiming parole procedures hearings non-payment for of court fines. were unconstitutional. The district court Cnty. Powers v. Hamilton Pub. Defender Wilkinson, in court as did the district (6th Cir.2007). Comm’n, F.3d The here, the inmates’ rul- § in that case did not only cognizable that the claims were plaintiff preclude asserting his in corpus for habeas under § plaintiff 1983 because the Supreme disagreed, 2254. The Court “challenge[d] procedures the flawed used holding “that 1983 remains available is, to incarcerate him—that the lack of an procedural challenges for where success inquiry ability into his to pay the court- in action necessarily spell would not underlying ordered fine—and not his con- or speedier immediate release for the viction,” citing to Wilkinson. Id. at (em- prisoner.” Id. at case, 604. Just inas this success for the Thus, phasis original). in the Court rea- plaintiff in Powers only that the “mean[t] soned, preclude pur- 2254 did not grant failure to indigency hearing an [him] suit of such a claim in a wrongful,” was and therefore the case was action. Id. at 125 S.Ct. 1242. properly brought 1983. Id. at The in recognized Court Wilkinson 604-05. eventually success release, lead to their but concluded that reasons, For the same the district .did preclude not ac- improperly dismissed Plaintiffs’ tion because the result of success claims in case. this Plaintiffs’ core claim is § 1983 action would be an entitlement to to a proceeding entitled a process, not immediate release. Id.2 address the Act and their indigency The permitted Court also Wilkinson, properly was declaratory to seek relief—simi- Contrary 1983. to the district lar the declaratory by sought relief conclusion, court’s chal Plaintiffs in parole this case—that lenging their sex offense convictions or procedures were unconstitutional. Id. at served) (already imprison terms of 125 S.Ct. 1242. Under Therefore, ment. by par as conceded question there is no that Plaintiffs’ claims ties, § process 2254 is declaratory completely inapplicable in relief this case this were asserted under case and cannot bar this 1983 act reasons, 1983. ion.3 For these the district Bradley Pryor, 2. See also 305 F.3d filing claims before suit in federal court. (11th Cir.2002) (holding § However, 1983 avail- pos the State indicate what plaintiff able where compel was type appropriate sible would be exhaustion government produce evidence for DNA involving case such as one this testing might even if the evidence lead to the detainees no state court prisoner challenging his conviction and even- pending proceeding, as in the cases cited released). tually being Regardless, the dissent. the State never presented argument to the district court argues for the first time in its appeal. Eagle and therefore waived it on appellate response brief 28 U.S.C. Hosp. Physicians, Consulting, LLC SRG statute, corpus a different habeas Inc., (11th Cir.2009) 1303-04 quires Plaintiffs to have their claims ("By failing to raise the issue to the district under that to have exhausted their § 2241 cally RE- mention 28 U.S.C. and 28 dismissing court’s Citing Wil- the case is REMANDED VERSED kinson, claims under Court concluded that of Plaintiffs’ consideration barred and wrote habe- the action was pursued. need to as relief would Judge, District Court did reference either dissenting: § 2241 2254 or U.S.C. correct- the District Court in its cally dismissal order. this case. ly dismissed raising, in District in the Defendants’ confined Plaintiffs are *4 action, and the need first progeny attack Preiser its They, Alabama. confinement; and, enough preserve their for habeas relief seems validity of asking money damages the Preiser bar and necessi- along with re- pursuing ask to “be Plaintiffs’ habeas relief— things, ty of other 2254, constitutionality 2241, They attack the if 28 and not leased.” even 15-20-22) (Ala.Code. § very statute the correct vehicle for federal habeas in of they are held. The under which circumstances. the action. Court dismissed that 28 I also believe I the action is barred of in a quires exhaustion state remedies 475, 1827,

v. S.Ct. background, like For this one. 1841, proge- L.Ed.2d 439 its Fla., Hughes Attorney Gen. Humphrey, ny, including Heck v. (11th Cir.2004); 1258, 1262 & n. Fain v. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 114 S.Ct. (5th Cir.1973); Duff, 488 F.2d claim is The so-called Royall, 117 U.S. parte (the perti- of procedure for the creation (1886). So, we cannot L.Ed. 868 none) by on face nent state statute has action as a just treat the section 1983 by a defense show— go forward. For rea- recognize— does not seem comity, the Alabama sons federal-state (again terms the statute that the statute’s us, responsible like courts— held) proper- cannot under which the Federal upholding Constitution— so be set to them that apply act given should be chance to first. free. All the relief seek maintain Defendants have done noth- recognition of the complaint including the — to this an insistence point waive supposed procedural defect which upon exhausting Plaintiffs’ rem- in- complain imply the —would edies. present detention. This hardly all like case seems Wilkinson I would affirm the decision of the Dis- trict Court. (2005), me. L.Ed.2d 253 raised

Defendants District Court on claimed that habeas

Preiser and so federal

corpus relief was the sole available

remedy, that Plaintiffs attacked given To

constitutionality of their confinement. also

the District Defendants appeal....”). [present argu[ment] right to on Appellants their] have waived their