Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Collins v. Jordan, 10th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Chase Collins' §1983 complaint without prejudice. Collins alleged he was denied access to a psychological evaluation from his 2003 civil commitment proceeding and an attorney for his annual reviews from 2003 to 2008 as a sexually violent predator. The district court found Collins' claims regarding the validity of his confinement should be pursued through a habeas corpus petition after exhausting state remedies, rather than a §1983 claim. The appeals court agreed habeas is the appropriate vehicle for relief from confinement itself. It denied Collins' request for counsel as moot and reminded him of his obligation to continue paying appellate fees.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-09-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-3072

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Chase Collins' §1983 complaint without prejudice. Collins alleged he was denied access to a psychological evaluation from his 2003 civil commitment proceeding and an attorney for his annual reviews from 2003 to 2008 as a sexually violent predator. The district court found Collins' claims regarding the validity of his confinement should be pursued through a habeas corpus petition after exhausting state remedies, rather than a §1983 claim. The appeals court agreed habeas is the appropriate vehicle for relief from confinement itself. It denied Collins' request for counsel as moot and reminded him of his obligation to continue paying appellate fees.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    7 views3 pages

    Collins v. Jordan, 10th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Chase Collins' §1983 complaint without prejudice. Collins alleged he was denied access to a psychological evaluation from his 2003 civil commitment proceeding and an attorney for his annual reviews from 2003 to 2008 as a sexually violent predator. The district court found Collins' claims regarding the validity of his confinement should be pursued through a habeas corpus petition after exhausting state remedies, rather than a §1983 claim. The appeals court agreed habeas is the appropriate vehicle for relief from confinement itself. It denied Collins' request for counsel as moot and reminded him of his obligation to continue paying appellate fees.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    FILED

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    September 26, 2011


    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court

    TENTH CIRCUIT

    CHASE CORBIN COLLINS,


    PlaintiffAppellant,
    v.

    No. 11-3072
    (D.C. No. 5:10-CV-03109-SAC)

    DON JORDAN, Secretary, Kansas


    Department of SRS, in his official
    capacity; the KANSAS ATTORNEY
    GENERAL,

    (D. Kan.)

    DefendantsAppellees.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

    Before OBRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

    After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has
    determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
    determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
    The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Plaintiff Chase Collins, a Kansas state prisoner, filed this 1983 action
    alleging he had been denied a copy of a psychological evaluation filed in his 2003
    state court civil commitment proceeding as a sexually violent predator under the

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
    however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
    Cir. R. 32.1.

    Kansas Sexually Violent Predators Act (KSVPA). He also alleges he was


    unlawfully denied access to an attorney during his annual KSVPA reviews from
    2003 to 2008. Upon review of his complaint, the district court concluded Mr.
    Collins allegations of constitutional error should be pursued under a petition for
    habeas corpus rather than under 1983. The court also determined Mr. Collins
    must first exhaust his state court remedies, observing that it had previously
    admonished Mr. Collins in 2008 to first file a state habeas petition under K.S.A.
    60-1501 before filing a habeas petition in federal court. The court finally noted
    that 1983 cannot provide relief for any violations of state law Mr. Collins may
    allege. It first ordered Mr. Collins to show cause why his complaint should not
    be dismissed as stating no claim upon which relief could be granted under 1983.
    Upon review of Mr. Collins response, the court dismissed Mr. Collins
    complaint for failure to state a claim and concluded a habeas petition would be
    the appropriate remedy once Mr. Collins had exhausted his state remedies.
    We review the courts dismissal of Mr. Collins complaint de novo. In this
    case, however, we agree with the district courts reasoning. Section 1983 is an
    appropriate forum to challenge conditions of confinement, but habeas is the
    appropriate vehicle for relief from the confinement itself. See 28 U.S.C.
    2254(a); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) ([A] state prisoners
    1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)no matter the relief sought
    (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoners suit (state
    -2-

    conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)if success in that


    action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its
    duration.). Since Mr. Collins argues that violations of his due process rights
    necessarily compel his release from all further commitment under the KSVPA,
    1983 is not the proper forum for his allegations. Mr. Collins request for
    appointment of counsel in support of this complaint is similarly denied as moot.
    We therefore AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons stated by the
    district court in its order to show cause and its later order dismissing Mr. Collins
    complaint without prejudice. Because the district court granted Mr. Collins
    earlier motion to proceed in forma pauperis, his motion for IFP filed with this
    appeal is denied as moot. Appellant is reminded of his obligation to continue
    making partial payments of the appellate fees.

    Entered for the Court

    Monroe G. McKay
    Circuit Judge

    -3-

    You might also like