Dale M. Denney v. Jeff Zmuda, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed Dale M. Denney’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the computation of his Kansas state sentences and alleged continued custody. The court held that the claims were barred under Heck v. Humphrey because Denney had not shown that his sentences had been invalidated, and that requests for release or sentence-related injunctive relief had to be pursued through habeas corpus. The court also denied Denney’s three pending motions.

Holdings

1. A § 1983 claim for monetary damages that necessarily implies the invalidity of a criminal sentence does not accrue unless the sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal, or called into question by a federal habeas writ. Plaintiff did not show that any of those events occurred, so his damages claims failed to state a claim.
2. Claims seeking discharge, release, or other relief that would result in a speedier release from custody must be pursued through habeas corpus rather than § 1983.
3. Plaintiff could not convert this § 1983 civil-rights action into a habeas corpus petition because the two types of actions involve different procedural rules, parties, forms, and filing fees.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's § 1983 claims for damages based on an allegedly invalid or miscalculated sentence were cognizable without a prior reversal, expungement, invalidation, or federal habeas determination concerning the sentence.
2. Whether plaintiff's requests for discharge and injunctive relief affecting the duration of his custody could be pursued in a § 1983 action rather than through habeas corpus.
3. Whether plaintiff could convert his § 1983 civil-rights action into a habeas corpus action.
4. Whether plaintiff's motions concerning filing-fee payments, conversion to habeas corpus, and a projected release date should be granted.

Disposition

dismissed