Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00824-KAJ Document 18 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WILLIS L. GRAYSON, JR., )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. No. 04-824-KAJ
LIEUTENANT JAMES STANTON, g
LIEUTENANT LARRY SAVAGE, )
ANTHONY J. RENDINA, STAFF )
LIEUTENANT RONALD MCCARTY, )
and STAFF LIEUTENANT B. )
WILLIAMS, )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Willis L. Grayson, Jr. ("Grayson") brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
He appears pro se and on July 14, 2004, was granted in forma pauperis status
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.l. 5).
The allegations in the complaint stem from three separate disciplinary actions, all
resulting in findings of guilt. The first infraction occurred on July 18, 2002, the second
occurred on October 27, 2002, and the third occurred on April 10, 2004. As a result of
the July 2002 infraction, Grayson was sanctioned with loss of 10 days good time
credits. Grayson does not indicate what type of sanction he received for the October
2002 infraction. The April 2004 infraction resulted in 10 days of loss of all privileges.
Grayson alleges that during the hearings and appeals for each of the infractions
he was denied his right to due process. For example, he alleges he was denied his
right to confront his accuser, he was denied the right to present witnesses, he was not
provided a hearing within the required time period, the hearing officers ignored

Case 1 :04-cv—00824-KAJ Document 18 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 2 of 3
evidence, and he was not allowed to present evidence. Suit is brought against the
correction officers who issued him the disciplinary tickets, the hearing officers, and the
appeal board designee.
As relief, Grayson asks that his classification level be returned to its original level
of six, that he be returned to his former classification status and housing unit, that the
Court make a finding that the named defendants violated his constitutional rights, that
an injunction issue vacating the decisions of the hearing officers and appeal board
officials, that the disciplinary actions be expunged from his record, that he be
reclassified from a medium high to minimum security level, that he be restored all rights
and privileges including his job, and that all good time credits be restored.
Although the complaint is framed as a civil rights action, Grayson has filed a
mixed complaint that seeks habeas corpus relief as well as relief for alleged
constitutional violations. l—le challenges the fact of the duration of his sentence by
challenging the forfeiture of good time credits and requesting the reinstatement of the
lost good time credits. In a case such as this, when an inmate challenges the execution
of a sentence, i.e., the forfeiture of good time credits, he must proceed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. See Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001). Grayson also seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief for constitutional violations as a result of alleged acts of
the named defendants. That portion ofthe case would proceed, if at all, under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
To avoid confusion between the statutes and theories, and in the interest of
justice, I have determined that it is appropriate for a new habeas corpus case to be
opened so that Grayson may pursue his § 2254 case and his § 1983 case in separate
2

Case 1 :04-cv—00824-KAJ Document 18 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 3 of 3
actions. Therefore, Grayson is notified that I intend to recharacterize portions ofthe §
1983 pleading and open a § 2254 case. Due to these circumstances, Grayson is
warned that this recharacterization means that any subsequent § 2254 motion will be
subject to the restrictions on "second or successive" motions. See Castro v. United
States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003). Accordingly, Grayson shall, within 30 days from the
date of this order, advise the Court whether he intends: 1) to withdraw his § 2254 claim
and proceed solely on the § 1983 claim or 2) to seek § 2254 relief in a separate action.
Grayson is advised that should he proceed with a § 2254 claim, he will be given
leave to amend, if timely sought, so that the petition contains all his § 2254 claims and
so that he may name the proper party defendants. See Castro, 540 U.S. at 383. The
parties are put on notice that should Grayson determine to proceed with the § 2254
claim, for limitation purposes, the filing date ofthe § 2254 petition will be the date that
Grayson signed the § 1983 complaint- that is, June 15, 2004.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within 30 days from the date of this order
Grayson shall advise the Court whether he intends: 1) to withdraw his § 2254 claim and
proceed solely on the § 1983 claim or 2) to seek § 2254 relief in a separate action. The
matter will proceed once Grayson has advised the Court of his intent.
DATED: January 26, 2006
Wilmington, Delaware
3

Case 1:04-cv-00824-KAJ

Document 18

Filed 01/26/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00824-KAJ

Document 18

Filed 01/26/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00824-KAJ

Document 18

Filed 01/26/2006

Page 3 of 3