Todd v. Baskerville, Nos. 81-6517

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore RUSSELL and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and HAYNSWORTH; DONALD RUSSELL; HAYNSWORTH
Citation712 F.2d 70
Docket Number81-6730,Nos. 81-6517
Decision Date06 July 1983
PartiesWilbur Fletcher TODD, Appellant, v. Alton BASKERVILLE, Warden, Appellee. Aaron HOLSEY, # 121937, Appellant, v. Gary BASS, individually, and as Assistant Prosecutor with the State's Attorney's Office; James P. Farmer, individually, and as Assistant Public Defender for the City of Baltimore, Maryland; Alfred J. O'Ferrell, III, individually, and as the deputy Public Defender for the State of Maryland; Leonard S. Freedman, individually, and as an Attorney with a practice; J. Harold Grady, individually, and as the Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore, Maryland; Allen D. Greif, individually, and as appointed Defender; Thomas E. Kelly, individually, and as a Parole Agent with the Dept. of Parole and Probation for the State of Maryland; Edward Mintzer, individually, and as an Official Court Reporter with the Supreme Bench; James W. Murphy, individually, and as an Associated Justice, assigned to the Supreme Bench; Charles E. Orth, Jr., individually, and as the Former Chief Judge of the Md. Court of Special Appeals; Calvin R. Payne, individually, and as an Official Court Reporter with the Supreme Bench; Leonard D. Redmond, III, individually and as an Assistant Public Defender for the City of Baltimore, Maryland; Julius A. Romano, individually, and as the Former Chief of Md. Court of Special Appeals; Gerald A. Smith, individually, and as Appointed Public Defender; Norman N. Yankellow, individually, and as Chief Public Defender for the City of Baltimore, Maryland, Appellees.

Page 70

712 F.2d 70
Wilbur Fletcher TODD, Appellant,
v.
Alton BASKERVILLE, Warden, Appellee.
Aaron HOLSEY, # 121937, Appellant,
v.
Gary BASS, individually, and as Assistant Prosecutor with
the State's Attorney's Office; James P. Farmer,
individually, and as Assistant Public Defender for the City
of Baltimore, Maryland; Alfred J. O'Ferrell, III,
individually, and as the deputy Public Defender for the
State of Maryland; Leonard S. Freedman, individually, and
as an Attorney with a practice; J. Harold Grady,
individually, and as the Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of
Baltimore, Maryland; Allen D. Greif, individually, and as
appointed Defender; Thomas E. Kelly, individually, and as a
Parole Agent with the Dept. of Parole and Probation for the
State of Maryland; Edward Mintzer, individually, and as an
Official Court Reporter with the Supreme Bench; James W.
Murphy, individually, and as an Associated Justice, assigned
to the Supreme Bench; Charles E. Orth, Jr., individually,
and as the Former Chief Judge of the Md. Court of Special
Appeals; Calvin R. Payne, individually, and as an Official
Court Reporter with the Supreme Bench; Leonard D. Redmond,
III, individually and as an Assistant Public Defender for
the City of Baltimore, Maryland; Julius A. Romano,
individually, and as the Former Chief of Md. Court of
Special Appeals; Gerald A. Smith, individually, and as
Appointed Public Defender; Norman N. Yankellow,
individually, and as Chief Public Defender for the City of
Baltimore, Maryland, Appellees.
Nos. 81-6517, 81-6730.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 13, 1983.
Decided July 6, 1983.

Page 71

James Phillip Chandler, Sr., Washington, D.C., for appellants.

Guy W. Horsley, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., Patricia McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md. (Gerald L. Baliles, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va., Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Maureen O'Ferrall Gardner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md., on brief) for appellees.

Before RUSSELL and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge.

DONALD RUSSELL, Circuit Judge:

These appeals have been consolidated because both involve the "ambiguous borderland" 1 between habeas corpus proceedings and § 1983 actions, though the dispositive issue in the two cases are different. As they come to us, the Todd appeal poses the question whether the action by a state prisoner in that case was to be considered in habeas and thus subject to state exhaustion or was to be treated as a § 1983 action in which state exhaustion was excused; the Holsey appeal, on the other hand, involves as the ultimate issue the propriety of a dismissal of a state prisoner's § 1983 action as frivolous under § 1915(d), 28 U.S.C. in the absence of a responsive pleading. The District Court in Todd found the action to be in habeas and dismissed it for failure to exhaust state remedies; in Holsey the Court dismissed the suit as frivolous under § 1915(d) without requiring any responsive pleading by the defendant. We affirm Holsey but, in Todd, the panel is in agreement to remand in order that the District Court may consider whether changed circumstances would now require a different result, though a majority of the panel would find that the action of the District Court on the facts as they existed at the time it acted was correct.

Todd

The real gravamen of this plaintiff's action is that, because of the failure "to properly apply good conduct time credit on his sentence," he has been and is as of the time of the filing of his action being "subjected to terms of confinement that go beyond satisfaction of sentence." He seeks release from confinement and damages at the rate of $1,000 per day for every day he is being unlawfully detained." Such an action, seeking primarily release from confinement, meets, as we view it, the test for a habeas proceeding, as enunciated in Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973).

In Preiser, the Supreme Court clearly stated that, "Congress has determined that habeas corpus is the appropriate [and exclusive] remedy for state prisoners attacking the validity of the fact or length of their confinement, and that specific determination must override the general terms of § 1983." The Supreme Court added in explication of this ruling that the state prisoner "cannot bring a § 1983 action, even though the literal terms of § 1983 might seem to cover such a challenge, because Congress has passed a more specific

Page 72

act to cover that situation, and, in doing so, has provided that a state prisoner challenging his conviction must first seek relief in a state forum, if a state remedy is available. It is clear to us that the result must be the same in the case of a state prisoner's challenge to the fact or duration of his confinement, based, as here, upon the alleged unconstitutionality of state administrative action. Such a challenge is just as close to the core of habeas corpus as an attack on the prisoner's conviction, for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
714 practice notes
  • Griffin v. Padula, C.A. No. 2:07-0874-PMD-RSC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 6 Julio 2007
    ...64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (en, banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1177, 116 S.Ct. 1273, 134 L.Ed.2d 219 (1996); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir.1983); Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595 F.2d 948 (4th Cir.1979) (recognizing the district court's authority to conduct an initial screening of any pro......
  • Thomas v. Colvin, C/A: 2:11-2066-DCN-BHH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 6 Septiembre 2011
    ...Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983); Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595 F.2d 948 (4th Cir. 1979) (recognizing the district court's authority to conduct an initial screening of......
  • Mills v. Greenville County, C.A. No. 0:08-69-PMD-BM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 15 Abril 2008
    ...519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir.1995) (en banc); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir.1983). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (a) requires an initial review of a "complaint in a civil action Page 487 which a prisoner seeks redr......
  • Scott v. Ozmint, Civil Action No. 9:06-1353-HFF-GCK.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 14 Diciembre 2006
    ...Correction, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir.1995) (en banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1177, 116 S.Ct. 1273, 134 L.Ed.2d 219 (1996); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F2d 70 (4th Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Hughes, 449 U.S. at 8, 101 S.Ct. 173. Even unde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
705 cases
  • Griffin v. Padula, C.A. No. 2:07-0874-PMD-RSC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 6 Julio 2007
    ...64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (en, banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1177, 116 S.Ct. 1273, 134 L.Ed.2d 219 (1996); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir.1983); Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595 F.2d 948 (4th Cir.1979) (recognizing the district court's authority to conduct an initial screening of any pro......
  • Thomas v. Colvin, C/A: 2:11-2066-DCN-BHH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 6 Septiembre 2011
    ...Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983); Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595 F.2d 948 (4th Cir. 1979) (recognizing the district court's authority to conduct an initial screening of......
  • Mills v. Greenville County, C.A. No. 0:08-69-PMD-BM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 15 Abril 2008
    ...519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir.1995) (en banc); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir.1983). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (a) requires an initial review of a "complaint in a civil action Page 487 which a prisoner seeks redr......
  • Scott v. Ozmint, Civil Action No. 9:06-1353-HFF-GCK.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 14 Diciembre 2006
    ...Correction, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir.1995) (en banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1177, 116 S.Ct. 1273, 134 L.Ed.2d 219 (1996); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F2d 70 (4th Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Hughes, 449 U.S. at 8, 101 S.Ct. 173. Even unde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT