Thomas E. Hill v. Perry M. Johnson, Jr., Clerk 19th Judicial District Court of East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana

539 F.2d 439, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6976
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 23, 1976
Docket76-1992
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 539 F.2d 439 (Thomas E. Hill v. Perry M. Johnson, Jr., Clerk 19th Judicial District Court of East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thomas E. Hill v. Perry M. Johnson, Jr., Clerk 19th Judicial District Court of East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, 539 F.2d 439, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6976 (5th Cir. 1976).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Thomas E. Hill, appellant, is confined in a Texas prison for causes unrelated to the present litigation. Pleading 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 as a jurisdictional basis, Hill sued the Clerk of the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, seeking to have a 1956 felony conviction in that court declared constitutionally invalid and to have it expunged from the Court’s records. 1 2The complaint specifically states that the sentence from that conviction has been satisfied and that he is no longer under any form of restraint pursuant to that conviction.

The district court treated the suit as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

The characterization of the appellant’s complaint as a petition for habeas corpus is incorrect. There is no restraint on appellant sufficient to satisfy the “in custody” requirement of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. *440 The sole function of the writ is to grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody, and it cannot be used properly for any other purpose. Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933 (5th Cir. 1976).

Nevertheless, on the basis of Carter v. Hardy, 526 F.2d 314 (5th Cir. 1976), we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

1

. There was no prayer for monetary relief in the complaint, and we pretermit consideration of the immunity issue. See Qualls v. Shaw, 535 F.2d 318 (5th Cir. 1976).

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

Related

Cook v. Bentley
202 So. 3d 316 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2016)
Looney v. State
881 So. 2d 1061 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2002)
McDonald v. Tennessee
673 F. Supp. 911 (M.D. Tennessee, 1987)
Taylor v. State
455 So. 2d 270 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1984)
Concepcion v. United States
568 F. Supp. 766 (S.D. New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
539 F.2d 439, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-e-hill-v-perry-m-johnson-jr-clerk-19th-judicial-district-court-ca5-1976.