Scott Prouty v. State of Wisconsin, DOC Warden, Waupun Correctional, State of Florida, and Lee County Sheriff

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin screens Scott Prouty’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint concerning his arrest in Florida, Wisconsin extended supervision, and alleged continued custody beyond his maximum release date. The court grants in forma pauperis status but dismisses the action because challenges to the fact or duration of custody must be pursued through habeas corpus, and the claims against Florida and the Lee County Sheriff fail to state a cognizable § 1983 claim or are barred by Heck v. Humphrey. The court also denies appointment of counsel and orders payment of the remaining filing fee.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff may not pursue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 a claim challenging the fact, duration, or validity of custody, including extended supervision, when the requested relief would require release or imply that the sentence is invalid; the claim must instead be raised through habeas corpus.
2. The State of Florida is not a person subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of federal law.
3. Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the Lee County Sheriff because the complaint alleged no facts from which the court could infer that the Sheriff caused or was responsible for a constitutional violation.
4. Claims for damages based on an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment are barred by Heck v. Humphrey unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by federal habeas relief; dismissal of such claims is without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff could use a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to obtain immediate release from extended supervision and challenge the duration or validity of his custody.
2. Whether Plaintiff stated a § 1983 claim against the State of Florida and the Lee County Sheriff for the alleged Florida arrest.
3. Whether claims seeking damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment were barred by Heck v. Humphrey because Plaintiff had not obtained reversal or invalidation of his conviction or sentence.

Disposition

dismissed