Henley v. Kallis
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:21-cv-01440
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Henley v. Kallis, Judge Wright dismissed Henley’s civil-rights complaint without prejudice because earned-time-credit claims must be brought as a habeas petition.
Dominic T. Henley’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The order did not decide whether he was actually eligible for earned-time credits; it held that his allegations were brought in the wrong type of case.
What happened
Dominic T. Henley alleged that prison officials wrongly treated him as ineligible for earned-time credits under the First Step Act. He brought those allegations as a civil-rights complaint.
The magistrate judge determined that claims challenging earned-time credits must be brought in a petition asking the court to review the legality or length of confinement, rather than under the civil-rights statute. Henley was given an opportunity to change his complaint into that type of petition but did not do so.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation as modified and dismissed Henley’s complaint without prejudice. The modification prevented the dismissal from counting as a strike under the prisoner litigation law.
The detailed version
- Henley v. Kallis · No. 0:21-cv-01440
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Oct. 15, 2021
Background
Dominic T. Henley, who is incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, alleged that he was eligible for earned-time credits under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4), but that prison officials considered him ineligible. He brought the allegations as a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer determined that Henley’s allegations were raised in the wrong type of case. Claims challenging the length or fact of confinement must be brought in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, rather than in a civil-rights complaint. The magistrate judge gave Henley an opportunity to restyle his complaint as a habeas petition, but he did not do so.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim for which the court could grant relief. No party objected to the recommendation.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
Because there were no timely objections, Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation as modified.
The court modified the recommended disposition from dismissal with prejudice to dismissal without prejudice. The court explained that this modification would prevent the dismissal from counting as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which can restrict a prisoner’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees after three qualifying dismissals.
The court adopted the August 20, 2021 Report and Recommendation as modified and dismissed Henley’s complaint without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.