UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION

BRICE M. HUTCHINGS, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:19-cv-01254-LCB-HNJ ) MARSHALL COUNTY ) COURTHOUSE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION The Magistrate Judge entered a Report on April 2, 2021, recommending the Court dismiss this action for Brice Hutchings’ failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). (Doc. 14). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined Mr. Hutchings’ claims warrant dismissal based on sovereign and judicial immunity. (Doc. 14 at 4–6). The Magistrate Judge also concluded that Heck v. Humphrey,

, 486–87 (1994) bars Mr. Hutchings’ request for monetary relief for his wrongful convictions and sentences. (Doc. 14 at 6–7). On May 24, 2021, Mr. Hutchings filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 23). Mr. Hutchings also moved for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 20). In his objections, Mr. Hutchings restates his claims that he was convicted and sentenced in Marshall County and Blount County on the same charge and requests

that the court set aside his convictions. (Doc. 23 at 1–2). However, Mr. Hutchings’ objections are not responsive to the Magistrate Judge’s findings that this action is subject to dismissal on immunity grounds and the bar imposed by Heck which

prohibits monetary or injunctive relief for an allegedly wrongful conviction or imprisonment that has not be set aside. Moreover, to the extent Mr. Hutchings seeks to have his convictions set aside, habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner attacking the validity of his conviction or confinement, and he may not do so through

a § 1983 action. See Preiser v. Rodriquez,

(1973). Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, and the objections thereto, the

court hereby ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2), this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for seeking monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such suit. Because Mr. Hutchings’ claims warrant dismissal, his motion for appointment of counsel is due to be denied. (Doc. 20). A Final Judgment will be entered. DONE and ORDERED June 2, 2021.

io SZ C Sha LILES C. BURKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE