Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Friston v. MDOC

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division

April 2, 2019

KEITH LEDELL FRISTON, #84468 PLAINTIFF
v.
MDOC, et al. DEFENDANTS

          ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

          HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Keith Ledell Friston's Complaint [1] filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Compl. [1] 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. [1] at 1-2, and Warden “Unknown” Mills, see Order [18].[1] Friston seeks an award of monetary damages. Compl. [1] at 4.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Friston 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. [1] 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. [21] at 1. After reviewing Friston's Complaint [1], 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 [9] entered on June 15, 2018, to file a response providing the Court with additional information concerning his claims. Friston filed his Response [11] on August 20, 2018.

         Because Friston's Response [11] was unclear, the Magistrate Judge entered another Order [12] 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 [12] at 1. Friston's Response [15] to this Order was filed on December 14, 2018.

         Again, Friston's Response [15] was unclear, so the Magistrate Judge entered an Order [16] 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. [17] at 1-97. The Magistrate Judge subsequently entered an Order [20] on March 20, 2019, which construed this filing as Friston's Response to the Order [16] entered on January 16, 2019. That Order [20] 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” [17] as Friston's Response to the Order [16] entered January 16, 2019, and pages 2-97 as attachments to Friston's Response. See Pl.'s Resp. [21]. In a separate Order, the Magistrate Judge also construed Friston's “copies of miscellaneous documents” as naming Warden Mills as a Defendant. See Order [18].

         Friston 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.

         The 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.

         II. ANALYSIS

         The 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 [7] at 1.

         A. Friston's habeas claims

         Liberally 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.

         Friston's 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. 15, 2018).

         B. Sectio ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.