Jason Edward Fenner v. Candis Taylor ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 04-1911
    ___________
    Jason Edward Fenner,                    *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the Western
    * District of Arkansas.
    Candis Taylor; Kristian Pawlik;         *
    Charles Duell,                          *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellees.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 27, 2004
    Filed: June 3, 2004
    ___________
    Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Jason Edward Fenner appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal of his
    
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action against a prosecutor and two public defenders involved in
    1
    The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court
    for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
    Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western
    District of Arkansas.
    state criminal proceedings against him. As relief, Mr. Fenner indicated he wanted a
    jury trial and a different attorney in his criminal case.
    Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that dismissal was proper.
    Mr. Fenner’s allegations and the relief he requested indicate that he was in effect
    challenging the validity of his guilty plea and conviction. The sole federal remedy
    for a state prisoner bringing such a challenge is a writ of habeas corpus, see Preiser
    v. Rodriguez, 
    411 U.S. 475
    , 499-500 (1973), and there is no indication in the record
    that Mr. Fenner has exhausted his state court remedies, see 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (b)(1)(A); Carmichael v. White, 
    163 F.3d 1044
    , 1045 (8th Cir. 1998) (§ 2254
    petitioner has burden to show all available state remedies have been exhausted or
    exceptional circumstances exist). Accordingly, we affirm, but we modify the
    dismissal to be without prejudice. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Mr. Fenner’s
    motion for appointment of counsel.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-1911

Judges: Arnold, Fagg, Smith

Filed Date: 6/3/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024