Hutchings v. Marshall County Courthouse et al, No. 4:2019cv01254 - Document 24 (N.D. Ala. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION - The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Accepts his Recommendation and this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is due to de denied. Signed by Judge Liles C Burke on 6/2/2021. (AHI)

Download PDF
Hutchings v. Marshall County Courthouse et al Doc. 24 FILED 2021 Jun-02 PM 04:11 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION BRICE M. HUTCHINGS, III, Plaintiff, v. MARSHALL COUNTY COURTHOUSE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:19-cv-01254-LCB-HNJ MEMORANDUM OPINION The Magistrate Judge entered a Report on April 2, 2021, recommending the Court dismiss this action for Brice Hutchings’ failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). (Doc. 14). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined Mr. Hutchings’ claims warrant dismissal based on sovereign and judicial immunity. (Doc. 14 at 4–6). The Magistrate Judge also concluded that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994) bars Mr. Hutchings’ request for monetary relief for his wrongful convictions and sentences. (Doc. 14 at 6–7). On May 24, 2021, Mr. Hutchings filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 23). Mr. Hutchings also moved for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 20). Dockets.Justia.com In his objections, Mr. Hutchings restates his claims that he was convicted and sentenced in Marshall County and Blount County on the same charge and requests that the court set aside his convictions. (Doc. 23 at 1–2). However, Mr. Hutchings’ objections are not responsive to the Magistrate Judge’s findings that this action is subject to dismissal on immunity grounds and the bar imposed by Heck which prohibits monetary or injunctive relief for an allegedly wrongful conviction or imprisonment that has not be set aside. Moreover, to the extent Mr. Hutchings seeks to have his convictions set aside, habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner attacking the validity of his conviction or confinement, and he may not do so through a § 1983 action. See Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, and the objections thereto, the court hereby ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2), this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for seeking monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such suit. Because Mr. Hutchings’ claims warrant dismissal, his motion for appointment of counsel is due to be denied. (Doc. 20). A Final Judgment will be entered. 2 DONE and ORDERED June 2, 2021. _________________________________ LILES C. BURKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.