Looney v. State
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Citation | 881 So.2d 1061 |
| Parties | Bradley Elliott LOONEY v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Decision Date | 27 September 2002 |
881 So.2d 1061
Bradley Elliott LOONEYv.
STATE of Alabama
CR-01-0162.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
September 27, 2002.
Andrew W. Redd, general counsel, and Jane LeCroy Brannan, asst. atty. gen., Department of Corrections, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Bradley Elliott Looney, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the following reasons, we transfer this case to the Court of Civil Appeals.
On August 31, 2001, Looney filed what he entitled a petition for a "writ of habeas corpus" in the Circuit Court of Limestone County — the county where he is incarcerated. He named the Department of Corrections and Wardens David Wise and Billy Mitchem as defendants. Looney challenged the conditions of his confinement, in part, arguing that he is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because there is no intercom system in the prison and the guards are unable to hear him yell for help if he is injured. At the end of the petition, Looney states:
"Plaintiff further and foremost states that to avoid any interference pursuant to Rule 12(B)(6) of Civil Procedure that signifies a `motion to Dismiss, for Failure to State a Claim which Relief can be Granted' he asserts a claim in the sum for the amount [sic] of ($5,000 dollars) and immediately released from out of this bondage of incarceration or immediate renovation of such a detrimental means of housing persons unsafely."
(C.R.9.) On September 11, 2001, Looney filed a motion entitled a "Motion for Inquisitorial Compromise." In this motion Looney appears to explain the substance of his earlier pleading:
"Plaintiff again states that he asserts the allegations of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 section number (1), to recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42; (2) to recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3) to redress the deprivation, under color of any State law statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the `Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress' providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; (4) to recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any `Act of Congress' providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote."
(C.R.13.) Most of the above-quoted material from Looney's motion is a direct quote from 28 U.S.C. § 1343 — contained in a part of Title 28 entitled "Jurisdiction and Venue" — titled "Civil Rights and Elective
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. Bentley (Ex parte Cook), 1140610
...8 (2009) (“The classic Latin definition of habeas corpus is an order: we command that you bring forth the body.”).Citing Looney v. State, 881 So.2d 1061 (Ala.Crim.App.2002), and Taylor v. State, 455 So.2d 270 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), the respondents argue that, because Cook's and Holt's petitio......
-
Buford v. Ala. Dep't of Corr.
...1059 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) ("[A] habeas corpus petition cannot be used to challenge the conditions of confinement."); Looney v. State, 881 So. 2d 1061, 1063 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) ("We have often stated that an inmate cannot challenge the conditions of his confinement in a habeas corpus pet......
-
Eddins v. State, 2140184.
...Appeals has repeatedly held that a habeas corpus petition cannot be used to challenge the conditions of confinement.See Looney v. State, 881 So.2d 1061, 1063 (Ala.Crim.App.2002).The Jefferson Circuit Court erred in dismissing Eddins's action. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the ca......
-
Gibson v. State Hezzie Sparks v. State Dale Lane v. State Alan Hampton v. State Ellis v. State
...“ ‘ “[T]he sole function of habeas corpus is to provide relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody.” ’ ” Looney v. State, 881 So.2d 1061, 1063 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (quoting Taylor v. State, 455 So.2d 270, 271 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), quoting in turn Cook v. Hanberry, 592 F.2d 248, 249 (5th Cir......