Hill v. Engelbrektson

Summary

The court recommends dismissal without prejudice of Michael Alan Hill’s second amended civil rights complaint because his claims challenge the validity of his state-court conviction and are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge declines to convert the action into a habeas petition, orders that a habeas petition form be provided, and recommends closing the case.

Holdings

1. A prisoner may not use this section 1983 action to obtain relief based on claims that attack the validity of a completed state criminal conviction; such a challenge must proceed through a federal habeas petition after exhaustion of state remedies.
2. The court should not convert the action into a habeas petition when the proper habeas respondent is absent, exhaustion is unclear, and the plaintiff has not clearly expressed an intent to seek habeas relief.
3. Further leave to amend was unwarranted because the amended complaint did not cure the previously identified defect and plaintiff appeared unable to state a cognizable section 1983 claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the second amended complaint stated a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when its allegations challenged the validity of plaintiff's state-court criminal conviction.
2. Whether the district court should convert the civil-rights action into a federal habeas petition.
3. Whether plaintiff should receive further leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed