CALIPO v. WOLF et al, No. 1:2018cv00320 - Document 29 (W.D. Pa. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER DENYING 28 MOTION to Stay filed by JULIA ANN CALIPO. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on 3/4/2019. (dm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CALIPO v. WOLF et al Doc. 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JULIA ANN CALIPO, Plaintiff, v. TOM WOLF, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 18-320 Erie District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo MEMORANDUM ORDER Presently pending is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Stay of Fines, Costs, Fees and Restitution.” ECF No. 28. In her motion, Plaintiff states that she is “unable to pay any fines, costs, or restitution for this sentence previously imposed by the court” and requests that the Court issue an order that no money be deducted from her account. Id. Plaintiff appears to be referring to an underlying criminal conviction, perhaps in state court, although this is not articulated in her motion. In any event, to the extent that she is seeking habeas-style relief, such as relief from the terms of a criminal conviction, a Section 1983 action is an inappropriate vehicle for that request. See, e.g., Bronowicz v. Allegheny County, 804 F.3d 338, 345 (3d Cir. 2015) (“[C]ivil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments.”) (citation omitted); see also Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 650-51 (7th Cir. 2000) (“State prisoners who want to challenge their convictions, their sentences, or administrative orders revoking good-time credits or equivalent sentence-shortening devices, must seek habeas corpus, because they contest the fact or duration of custody.”). Simply put, the Court has no 1 Dockets.Justia.com authority to alter the terms of Plaintiff’s conviction in an unrelated matter by way of a Section 1983 action. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. /s/ Richard A. Lanzillo_______ RICHARD A. LANZILLO United States Magistrate Judge Dated: March 4, 2019 2
]]>
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.
