Fields v. Ms. Dept. of Corrections et al, No. 1:2015cv00345 - Document 17 (S.D. Miss. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 11/4/2015. (JCH)

Download PDF

Fields v. Ms. Dept. of Corrections et al Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION BRANDON EARL FIELDS, # 84806 v. PETITIONER CAUSE NO. 1:15CV345-LG-RHW MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SOUTH MISSISSIPPI CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, MARSHALL FISHER, JACQUELINE BANKS, WARDEN TURNER, CAPTAIN DAVIS, CAPTAIN JOHNSON, LIEUTENANT SMITH, OFFICER CLARK, JOHN DOES 1-2, and JANE DOES 1-2 RESPONDENTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL BEFORE THE COURT is pro se Petitioner Brandon Earl Fields’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is incarcerated with the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and he challenges two Rule Violation Reports (“RVRs”). The Court has considered and liberally construed the pleadings. As set forth below, this case is dismissed without prejudice. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 8, 2015, Fields filed a Complaint in civil action number 1:15cv241HSO-JCG. He challenged the conditions of his confinement and two disciplinary convictions, one dated May 6, 2015, for disobeying an officer, and one dated July 2, for assaultive action on a prison employee. As for the disciplinary convictions (RVRs), Fields claimed that he was convicted in violation of his right to due process. Dockets.Justia.com Besides requesting money and injunctive relief, Fields asked that “all lost time be returned to” him. (Dkt. 2 at 4). Because Fields presented both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and habeas claims, the habeas claims, seeking restoration of sentence credits, were severed and opened in the instant civil action on October 16, 2015. Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker then ordered Fields to amend his Petition. On October 30, 2015, Fields responded to the Court’s Order. Fields alleges that the first RVR resulted in lost privileges for one month. On the second RVR, he was sentenced to two months of lost privileges and six months loss of trusty status. However, he was later told that the second RVR was dismissed and so he was never actually taken out of trusty status. Fields now claims that the second RVR did lead to his recent denial of parole. He denies however that this “lawsuit is . . . about a[n] early release from prison. . . .” (Dkt. 15 at 5). In his Amended Petition, he claims that, “this case is not about me being held in violation of the Constitution. This case is about the staff at [South Mississippi Correctional Institution] . . . lying on a[n] official document to take my earned time, and denying my right to due process in the R.V.R. hearing.” (Dkt. 16 at 5). Fields alleges that he has completed his administrative remedies and is currently challenging both RVRs in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Mississippi. DISCUSSION It is unclear whether Fields is still seeking expedited release from detention. 2 On the one hand he denies that this case is about early release, on the other hand he says he was denied parole and that this case is about staff lying in order to take his earned time away. If Fields no longer seeks habeas relief, then the claims should be dismissed without prejudice. If Fields does seek immediate or expedited release, he must exhaust his available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). This gives “the State the ‘opportunity to pass upon and correct’ alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (quoting Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995)). In order to exhaust Fields’s state remedies, he is required to present the claim to the highest court in the State. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 840 (1999). The only attempts at exhaustion he describes are with the Circuit Court of Greene County, where his claims are still pending. Therefore, this case is alternatively dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons stated above, this case should be and is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate final judgment shall issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 4th day of November, 2015. s/ Louis Guirola, Jr. LOUIS GUIROLA, JR. CHIEF U.S. 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.