Gary Williams v. Warden Lackawanna County Priso

Third Circuit

Gary Williams v. Warden Lackawanna County Priso

667 F. App'x 361

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 2016

Docket14-3997

StatusUnpublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 361 (Gary Williams v. Warden Lackawanna County Priso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gary Williams v. Warden Lackawanna County Priso, 667 F. App'x 361 (3d Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT ORDER

Jane R. Roth, Circuit Judge

To the extent that a certificate of ap-pealability is necessary for this appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A), it is denied. Otherwise, after consideration of all contentions raised by the appellant, it is ADJUDGED and ORDERED by this Court that the judgment of the District Court entered September 12, 2014, be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Although Williams captioned his case as a state habeas action against a prison warden for relief in the Lackawanna Court of Common Pleas, his claims did not sound in habeas. His claims did not challenge to the fact or duration of his imprisonment, which is the essential purpose of the writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 498-99, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). He brought claims about the conditions of his confinement, namely Eighth Amendment claims about his medical care (or the lack thereof). Such claims by a state prisoner like Williams are properly brought in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not a habeas petition. See Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen the challenge is to a condition of confinement such that a finding in plaintiffs favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction, [a civil rights action] is appropriate.”) Although we perhaps could, in an appropriate case, vacate a district court’s dismissal of a ha-beas petition and remand for it to be treated a civil rights or similar complaint, see Moorish Sci. Temple, Inc. v. Smith, 693 F.2d 987, 989-90 (2d Cir. 1982); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), such an outcome is not appropriate in this case where Williams already has a civil rights action pending relating to the same or *362 similar claims and deliberately filed a different type of action.

Each side shall bear their own costs.

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

JUDGMENT ORDER

Jane R. Roth, Circuit Judge

To the extent that a certificate of ap-pealability is necessary for this appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A), it is denied. Otherwise, after consideration of all contentions raised by the appellant, it is ADJUDGED and ORDERED by this Court that the judgment of the District Court entered September 12, 2014, be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Although Williams captioned his case as a state habeas action against a prison warden for relief in the Lackawanna Court of Common Pleas, his claims did not sound in habeas. His claims did not challenge to the fact or duration of his imprisonment, which is the essential purpose of the writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 498-99, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). He brought claims about the conditions of his confinement, namely Eighth Amendment claims about his medical care (or the lack thereof). Such claims by a state prisoner like Williams are properly brought in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not a habeas petition. See Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen the challenge is to a condition of confinement such that a finding in plaintiffs favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction, [a civil rights action] is appropriate.”) Although we perhaps could, in an appropriate case, vacate a district court’s dismissal of a ha-beas petition and remand for it to be treated a civil rights or similar complaint, see Moorish Sci. Temple, Inc. v. Smith, 693 F.2d 987, 989-90 (2d Cir. 1982); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), such an outcome is not appropriate in this case where Williams already has a civil rights action pending relating to the same or *362 similar claims and deliberately filed a different type of action.

Each side shall bear their own costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-williams-v-warden-lackawanna-county-priso-ca3-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack