Daniel Lee Beckley v. Marc E. Johnson, Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana adopted a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and dismissed Daniel Lee Beckley's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Louisiana appellate judges with prejudice. The court concluded that the requested relief would effectively require habeas relief unavailable under § 1983 and that amendment would be futile because a successive habeas petition would be subject to dismissal. The dismissal was also counted as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Holdings

1. A § 1983 action cannot provide the injunctive relief Beckley sought, including reversal of his conviction, a new trial, or comparable relief directed at obtaining review or alteration of his conviction; such relief must be pursued through a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
2. Leave to amend was properly denied as futile because the proposed relief remained unavailable under § 1983 and any amendment consistent with the alleged facts would be subject to dismissal as a successive habeas petition.
3. The claims were dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
4. The dismissal counts as a strike against Beckley under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Questions Presented

1. Whether Beckley's requested relief was available through a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
2. Whether Beckley should be allowed to amend his complaint to seek reconstruction of the appellate record and a hearing concerning prejudice.
3. Whether the claims should be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.
4. Whether the dismissal should count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Disposition

dismissed