Unpublished Disposition Notice: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(C) States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Ashley Alfred Coward, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of Ohio, Defendant, Michael Rich, Mahoning County Sheriff'S Department, Edward Nemeth, United States Marshal Service, Mel Mcdowell, Defendants-Appellees., 872 F.2d 1024 (6th Cir. 1989)

Federal Circuits, 6th Cir. (April 03, 1989)

Docket number: 88-3831
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/37255168
Id. vLex: VLEX-37255168

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Cherokee Express, Incorporated, a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cherokee Express, Incorporated, a Pennsylvania Corporation; A.R.L. Incorporated, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendants-Appellants., 924 F.2d 603 (6th Cir. 1991)

Text:

Before MERRITT and DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and LIVELY, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Ashley Coward appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his civil action seeking damages, habeas, and declaratory relief filed under 28 U.S.C. Secs . 1331, 1343 and 2255. The appeal has been referred to a panel pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the certified record and briefs, the panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Coward filed a complaint against Federal and Ohio state officials for damages. Thereafter, he sought relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec . 2255 solely against the state officials and moved to dismiss the federal defendants from the action. In both his complaint and Sec. 2255 motion, Coward challenged the validity of his state court conviction underlying the revocation of his federal parole and "street time" credit. The district court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.

Upon consideration, we conclude that Coward abandoned his initial complaint and sought to proceed under Sec. 2255 solely against the Ohio state defendants. As such, the action was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. Coward can only challenge the validity of his state conviction by filing an action under 28 U.S.C. Sec . 2254 following the exhaustion of state court remedies. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). To the extent he challenged the parole board's decisions, such a challenge can only be brought under 28 U.S.C. Sec . 2241 for habeas relief following exhaustion of his administrative remedies. See Little v. Hopkins, 638 F.2d 953 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam).

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Other documents:
Allen v Fulton National Bank. 109 Ga App 90 135 S.E.2d 591 1964 | Moore v Metts 4th Cir 2005 | Yang vs Gonzales [Summ. Ord.] (2nd Cir. 2006) | U.S. v. Moran (10th Cir. 2007) | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia Pamplona/Iruna Navarra Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo of January 28 2004 | jueves 26 | 45 CFR 1177.3 - Other remedies. | un 'shawarma' en la puesta del sol | Case of Audiencia Provincial Madrid Sección 13ª nº 348/2006 of June 21 2006 | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia - Sevilla, Andalucia n 2138, of May 23, 2002 | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia - Navarra - Sala de lo Civil y Penal ... | Anuncio do 15 de setembro de 2004 da aprobación definitiva da delimitación e exposició...