United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL
SULEYMAN OZERDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiff Keith Ledell Friston's Complaint
 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see
Compl.  at 1, and Friston's Responses [11, 15, 21]
filed on August 20, 2018, December 14, 2018, and March 20,
2019, respectively, to the Magistrate Judge's Orders [9,
12, 16] entered June 15, 2018, September 28, 2018, and
January 16, 2019, respectively. Friston names as Defendants
MDOC, “Sheriff Department, ” “Police
Department, ” “Coahoma Court, ” Judge
“Unknown” Dee, see Compl.  at 1-2,
and Warden “Unknown” Mills, see Order
. Friston seeks an award of monetary
damages. Compl.  at 4.
alleges that he was charged and convicted in the Circuit
Court of Coahoma County, Mississippi, with DUI death and
leaving the scene of an accident. Compl.  at 4, 6. His
Complaint asserts claims against, and seeks damages from,
Defendant Warden Mills concerning the conditions of his
confinement while housed at South Mississippi Correctional
Facility (“SMCI”). See Pl.'s Resp.
 at 1. After reviewing Friston's Complaint , the
Magistrate Judge determined that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915 additional information was required in order to screen
the case. Friston was directed by an Order  entered on
June 15, 2018, to file a response providing the Court with
additional information concerning his claims. Friston filed
his Response  on August 20, 2018.
Friston's Response  was unclear, the Magistrate Judge
entered another Order  on September 28, 2018, directing
Friston to provide additional information “concerning
his claims and to clarify his additional statements
concerning his conditions of confinement while housed at
Central Mississippi Correctional Facility and South
Mississippi Correctional Institution.” Order  at 1.
Friston's Response  to this Order was filed on
December 14, 2018.
Friston's Response  was unclear, so the Magistrate
Judge entered an Order  granting Friston an extension of
time to clarify the names of additional Defendants and state
how each of the newly named Defendants violated his
constitutional rights. Friston filed documents on February
22, 2019, which were docketed by the Clerk's Office as
“copies of miscellaneous documents.” Pl.'s
Copies of Miscellaneous Doc.  at 1-97. The Magistrate
Judge subsequently entered an Order  on March 20, 2019,
which construed this filing as Friston's Response to the
Order  entered on January 16, 2019. That Order 
further directed the Clerk to file a copy of page 1 of
Friston's “copies of miscellaneous documents”
as Friston's Response and to file pages 2-97 as
attachments to the Response. Accordingly, on March 20, 2019,
the Clerk filed page 1 of Friston's “copies of
miscellaneous documents”  as Friston's Response
to the Order  entered January 16, 2019, and pages 2-97 as
attachments to Friston's Response. See Pl.'s
Resp. . In a separate Order, the Magistrate Judge also
construed Friston's “copies of miscellaneous
documents” as naming Warden Mills as a Defendant.
See Order .
complains that he has been wrongfully charged, convicted, and
sentenced for the crimes of DUI death and leaving the scene
of an accident, and raises claims against Defendants
“Sheriff Department, ” “Police Department,
” “Coahoma Court, ” and Judge Dee. Friston
further alleges that his constitutional rights relating to
the conditions of his confinement have been violated by
Defendants MDOC and Mills.
Court, having liberally construed the pleadings in light of
applicable law, finds that Friston's claims relating to
his convictions and sentences for DUI death and leaving the
scene of an accident, and his claims against Defendants MDOC,
“Sheriff Department, ” “Police Department,
” “Coahoma Court, ” and Judge
“Unknown” Dee, should be dismissed. Friston's
claims against Defendant Warden Mills will proceed.
in forma pauperis statute mandates dismissal
“at any time” if the Court determines an action
“is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i-iii). Because Friston is proceeding
as a pauper, § 1915(e)(2) applies to this case.
See Order  at 1.
Friston's habeas claims
construed, Friston's claims relating to his convictions
and sentences are clearly in the nature of habeas relief. The
United States Supreme Court has held that a “prisoner
in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge
‘the fact or duration of his confinement.'”
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (quoting
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973)).
When a state prisoner is challenging the fact or duration of
his confinement, his exclusive remedy is a petition for
habeas corpus relief. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 489.
sole remedy concerning his convictions and sentences is
through a petition for habeas corpus relief. Id.;
Thomas v. Torres, 717 F.2d 248, 249 (5th Cir. 1983).
Any habeas claims Friston may be asserting in this civil
action will be dismissed without prejudice to Friston's
right to pursue them in his pending habeas corpus case,
see Friston v. Att'y Gen. of the State of Miss.,
Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-207-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss. filed Oct.