Spina v. Aaron, 86-1407

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before RUBIN, RANDALL, and HIGGINBOTHAM; ALVIN B. RUBIN
• Citation: 821 F.2d 1126
• Parties: Alan James SPINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.L. AARON, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar.
• Docket Number: No. 86-1407,86-1407
• Decision Date: 17 July 1987

Page 1126

821 F.2d 1126 Alan James SPINA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
C.L. AARON, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 86-1407
Summary Calendar. United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit. July 17, 1987.

Page 1127

Alan James Spina, pro se.

Mattie Peterson Compton, Asst. U.S. Atty., Marvin Collins, U.S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before RUBIN, RANDALL, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:

Because the decision in this Bivens-type suit by a prisoner against federal prison officials for an isolated constitutional tort may affect the fact or duration of the prisoner's confinement, we hold that the action cannot proceed, even as to claims for damages, until the prisoner exhausts the remedy available by habeas corpus proceedings.

Alan James Spina, an inmate incarcerated in the Western District of Texas, filed a Bivens-type complaint in the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas asserting that several prison officials had violated his constitutional rights under the fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments by finding him guilty of attempting to escape on the basis of insufficient evidence and by subjecting him to excessive penalties as a result of that determination. In his prayer for relief, Spina asked the district court to order the defendants to amend his security status to a more favorable classification, to amend the report filed about the incident in question to charge "possession of contraband" rather than "attempted escape," to expunge all records of an attempted escape, and to pay Spina damages for violating his constitutional rights. Spina did not request, however, that the district court order the defendants to reinstate 90 days of statutory good-time credit that were revoked when Spina was disciplined.

Reasoning that Spina's complaint effectively challenges the fact or duration of his confinement, the district court construed it as an implicit request for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241. The court then determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Spina's habeas action due to the fact that he was incarcerated in a facility located in another federal district. ¹ It therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice so that Spina could initially seek habeas relief in a proper forum. Spina now appeals from the determination that his claim should be construed as a request for habeas relief and from the district court order dismissing his complaint.

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose no requirement that a federal prisoner exhaust habeas corpus remedies before initiating a Bivens-type action, the Supreme Court has imposed such a requirement with regard to Sec. 1983 petitions brought by state prisoners who contest the fact or duration of their confinement. ² Explaining the basis of this rule, the Supreme Court noted, in Preiser v. Rodriguez, ³ that "Congress has determined that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for state prisoners attacking the validity of the fact or length of their confinement, and that

Page 1128

specific determination must override the general terms of Sec. 1983." ⁴

Congress has likewise established procedures through which federal prisoners may seek release from wrongful incarceration, ⁵ subject...