Nash v. Keagan et al, No. 4:2010cv00892 - Document 5 (S.D. Tex. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION on Dismissal.(Signed by Judge Lynn N. Hughes) Parties notified.(ghassan, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
8 9 8 TERRY LYNN NASH, TDCJ 1544255, Plaintiff, § 6 6 6 6 versus -EN KEAG ,ET AL., AN Defendants. CIVIL ACTION 10-892 H- 5 Opinion on Dismissal Terry Lynn Nash sues Parole Officers Karen Keagan and E. Mitchell, Parole Supervisor Ann McVea, Warden L. Jenkins, Parole Director Brian Collier, and Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) Director Brad Livingston for civil rights violations. 42 U.S.C. proc;eed as a pauper. 28 U.S.C. 8 1983. Nash moves to 8 1915. Nash is currentlyheld in the South Texas Intermediate SanctionFacility(1SF). Nash's claims follow. TDCJ officials sent Nash to the ISF on September 2, 2009. They have held Nash in the facility past the 180 days allowed by law. Nash seeks monetary damages, immediate release, and declaratory and injunctive relief. A civil rights claim for damages which indirectly challenges the validity of a conviction or confinement cannot proceed unless the conviction or confinement has been overturned. Heck v. Hunzphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Heck applies to claims for injunctive relief that imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence. Kutzner v. Montgomery Counq, 303 F.3d 339, 340-41 (5th cir. 2002). Nash's claimundermines the validity of his current custody. He states he has not sued in state or fkderal court concerning his challenged confmement. Petition, p. 2,y I.A. There is no showing that the extended custody which Nash challenges has been invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey bars Naslh's damages claims and his requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. Moreover, his claims sound in habeas corpus. Nash should initially pursue his claims under habeas corpus jurisprudence. Richardson v. Flerning, 651 F.2d 366,375 (5th Cir. 1981) (a claimant must exhaust his habeas remedies before the court will review the civil rights aspects of the claims). However, this Court will not convert this case to a habeas corpus application becauseNash has not exhausted his state court remedies on his claims. Petition, p. 2,7 I.A. A person in custodyunder the judgment of a state court must exhaust his state court remedies before applying for habeas corpus relief in federal court. 28 U.S.C. §2254(b); Colt?manv. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991). Nash fails to state a claim recognized at law. This case will be dismissed. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice will deduct 20% of each deposit made to Nash's inmate trust account and pay this to the court regularly, when the account exceeds $10, until the filing fee, $350, is paid. The clerk will send a copy to the Records Office of the South Texas Intermediate Sanction Facility, 1511 Preston, Houston, Texas 77002, and to the District Clerk, Three-Strikes List, 21 1 West Fergpson, Tyler, Texas 75702. Signed 4 2J ,2010, at Houston, Texas. Lynn N. Hughes United States District Judge
]]>
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.
