Christensen v. Stammen

Seventh Circuit

Christensen v. Stammen

119 F. App'x 822

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 14, 2005

DocketNo. 04-2538

StatusPublished

This text of 119 F. App'x 822 (Christensen v. Stammen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Christensen v. Stammen, 119 F. App'x 822 (7th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Having pleaded no contest in Wisconsin state court to a charge of drunk driving, Dennis Christensen was given a five-year term of probation, with a condition that he spend nine months in the Sauk County Jail. See Wis. Stat. § 973.09(4)(a); Prue v. State, 63 Wis.2d 109, 216 N.W.2d 43, 44-45 (1974). The court specified that Christensen would accrue no good-time credit during those nine months.

While in jail, Christensen filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Sauk County Sheriff. Christensen alleged that his inability to receive good-time credit denied him due process. The defendant moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The court noted that because Christensen was challenging the duration of his prison term, the proper way for him to proceed was to petition for a writ of habeas corpus after exhausting state remedies. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

On appeal, Christensen continues to argue the merits of his due-process claim, but he does not address the district court’s reason for dismissing his case: a § 1983 lawsuit cannot be used in place of a petition for habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir.2001). Christensen was challenging the duration of his confinement, and the district court properly dismissed the complaint.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Having pleaded no contest in Wisconsin state court to a charge of drunk driving, Dennis Christensen was given a five-year term of probation, with a condition that he spend nine months in the Sauk County Jail. See Wis. Stat. § 973.09(4)(a); Prue v. State, 63 Wis.2d 109, 216 N.W.2d 43, 44-45 (1974). The court specified that Christensen would accrue no good-time credit during those nine months.

While in jail, Christensen filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Sauk County Sheriff. Christensen alleged that his inability to receive good-time credit denied him due process. The defendant moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The court noted that because Christensen was challenging the duration of his prison term, the proper way for him to proceed was to petition for a writ of habeas corpus after exhausting state remedies. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

On appeal, Christensen continues to argue the merits of his due-process claim, but he does not address the district court’s reason for dismissing his case: a § 1983 lawsuit cannot be used in place of a petition for habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir.2001). Christensen was challenging the duration of his confinement, and the district court properly dismissed the complaint.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 F. App'x 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christensen-v-stammen-ca7-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack