Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

55 F. App'x 182

Ewell v. Angelone

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided January 30, 2003

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2003-01-30

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915A · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Preiser v. Rodriguez · Todd v. Baskerville

Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2003-01-30

¶1 OPINION

PER CURIAM.

¶2 Stacy L. Ewell, a Virginia prisoner, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254*183 (2000), seeking immediate release from confinement. Ewell alleged in his § 2254 petition that his good conduct credits were improperly denied and calculated such that he should have been released from confinement in November 1999. The district court analyzed his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and dismissed the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000).

¶3 The core of Ewell’s lawsuit is an attack on the length of his confinement. Such a claim sounds in habeas corpus, rather than § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 497-500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70, 73 (4th Cir.1983). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for the district court to analyze Ewell’s claims in the context of a § 2254 petition consistent with this opinion. We decline to address any of Ewell’s habeas claims on the merits.

¶4 VACATED AND REMANDED.

/55/fappx/182 · .json · Public domain