The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
COURTNEY CORDELL CRENSHAW, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-23-247-J
)
KEVIN STITT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a complaint alleging violations of his civil
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Amanda
Maxfield Green consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [Doc. No. 4]. Thereafter, Judge Green
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the Court dismiss without prejudice
Plaintiff’s Complaint as a request for habeas relief and dismiss as moot Plaintiff’s pending
Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. [Doc. No. 5]. Plaintiff has filed an
Objection to the Report and Recommendation which triggers de novo review. [Doc. No. 6].
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. In his first claim, Plaintiff
asserts that he was denied due process and equal protection of the law in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment and requests that Defendants be required to conduct a hearing in which he may
demonstrate that under the law at the time of his trial, he would not have been certified as an adult.
In his second claim, Plaintiff asserts that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment and requests a personal interview with the Pardon and Parole
Board to consider his rehabilitative efforts.
In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Green finds that Plaintiff is seeking both to
invalidate his conviction by challenging its constitutionality and to hasten or effectuate his release
from custody by requesting a meeting with the Pardon and Parole Board. Judge Green concludes
that this relief is not available in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and that these claims should be
dismissed without prejudice to refiling as a separate action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2241, if
appropriate. In his objection, Plaintiff asserts that these claims may be brought under § 1983 based
upon Reed v. Goertz, 995 F.3d 425 (Sth Cir. 2021), and Thomas v. Stitt, No. 21-6011, 2022 WL
289661 (10th Cir. Feb. 1, 2022).
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's objection, and the case law
cited, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's first claim seeks relief that is unavailable in a § 1983
action. The claim asserted in the Reed case cited by Plaintiff is substantially different from
Plaintiff’s first claim. However, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs second claim seeks relief that
is available through a § 1983 action. The claim asserted in Thomas, which the Tenth Circuit found
stated a plausible claim for relief under § 1983, is substantially similar to Plaintiff's second claim.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS IN PART and DECLINES TO ADOPT IN PART the
Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 5] as follows:
(1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s first
claim and DISMISSES Plaintiff's first claim without prejudice as a request
for habeas relief;
(2) The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the Report and Recommendation as to
Plaintiffs second claim; and
(3) The Court REFERS this case back to Judge Green for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26" day of April, 2023.
HAM.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE