Richard Emmett Smiley, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Michael Concha, et al., Defendant-appellee, 951 F.2d 362 (9th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 951 F.2d 362 (9th Cir. 1991) Submitted Dec. 11, 1991. *Decided Dec. 19, 1991

Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER and RYMER, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Richard Emmett Smiley, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of leave to file his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prepayment of the filing fee on the ground that the action was frivolous. We affirm.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a district court may grant in forma pauperis status if a litigant is unable to pay the costs of the suit. Nevertheless, the district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous. Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

In his complaint, Smiley alleged that he was denied the opportunity to have essential trial witnesses testify in his defense during his state court criminal proceedings. He did not seek damages, but requested that his conviction be overturned.

Because Smiley seeks to overturn his conviction, his exclusive federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodrigeuz, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Generally, a district court should construe a section 1983 complaint that seeks habeas relief as a habeas petition. See Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1347 & n. 13 (9th Cir. 1981). Here, however, the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition because Smiley was released from custody in 1984. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968) (it is a statutory jurisdictional prerequisite that a habeas corpus petitioner be in custody at the time he files his petition). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Smiley's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.