Potter v. Buckner

E.D. Missouri

Potter v. Buckner

DecidedJune 28, 2024

Docket4:24-cv-00245

StatusUnknown

This text of Potter v. Buckner (Potter v. Buckner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Potter v. Buckner, (E.D. Mo. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER J. POTTER ) Petitioner, Vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-00245 SEP MICHELLE BUCKNER, et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner’s Pro Se Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. Doc. [13]. In his motion, Petitioner alleges mistreatment by a correctional officer at the facility where he is in custody. /d. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied without prejudice to his ability to bring such claims in a separate cause of action. In this case, Petitioner’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus is pending before the Court. See Doc. [1]. In the instant motion, Petitioner appears to seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provide access to a federal forum for constitutional claims against state officials. But the statutes differ in both scope and operation. A state prisoner’s challenge to the validity of his confinement or to matters affecting its duration falls within the province of habeas corpus and, therefore, must be brought pursuant to § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Challenges to the conditions of confinement and other actions against state officials for civil wrongs may be presented in a § 1983 action. While Petitioner may simultaneously seek relief under § 1983 by filing a separate civil action, he may not seek relief under § 1983 in this habeas case. The Court will order the Clerk of Court to mail to Petitioner a copy of the Court’s form prisoner civil rights complaint so that he may file a separate action under § 1983 if he so chooses. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Pro Se Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, Doc. [13], is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mail to Petitioner a copy of the Court’s form prisoner civil rights complaint. Dated this 28™ day of June, 2024. Zhe Liege SARAH E. PITLYK, U°S. DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER J. POTTER ) Petitioner, Vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-00245 SEP MICHELLE BUCKNER, et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner’s Pro Se Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. Doc. [13]. In his motion, Petitioner alleges mistreatment by a correctional officer at the facility where he is in custody. /d. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied without prejudice to his ability to bring such claims in a separate cause of action. In this case, Petitioner’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus is pending before the Court. See Doc. [1]. In the instant motion, Petitioner appears to seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provide access to a federal forum for constitutional claims against state officials. But the statutes differ in both scope and operation. A state prisoner’s challenge to the validity of his confinement or to matters affecting its duration falls within the province of habeas corpus and, therefore, must be brought pursuant to § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Challenges to the conditions of confinement and other actions against state officials for civil wrongs may be presented in a § 1983 action. While Petitioner may simultaneously seek relief under § 1983 by filing a separate civil action, he may not seek relief under § 1983 in this habeas case. The Court will order the Clerk of Court to mail to Petitioner a copy of the Court’s form prisoner civil rights complaint so that he may file a separate action under § 1983 if he so chooses. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Pro Se Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, Doc. [13], is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mail to Petitioner a copy of the Court’s form prisoner civil rights complaint. Dated this 28™ day of June, 2024. Zhe Liege SARAH E. PITLYK, U°S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Potter v. Buckner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-v-buckner-moed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack